1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Is Haulage Goodwill rroperty ,, .
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tw°points of law arose when Messrs. C. and G. Yeoman, Canterbury, applied to the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, this week, for confirmation of an agreement with the Road Haulage Executive concerning compensation.
The first question was whether goodwill was property under the terms of Section 47 (2) of the Transport Act, and entitled the holder to compensation in addition to that paid for cessation of business under Section 47 (3).
The Yeoman undertaking had been carried on as a partnership, and the second point was whether, in assessing net profit for the purposes of calculating compensation under Section 47 (3), it was proper to deduct an amount equivalent to the economic value of the services of the partners.
A substantial sum had been agreed upon, but this may he changed when the Tribunal has considered the matter and heard all counsels' , arguments. The case is to be resumed.