'LA was misled" allegation
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
rr HE production of a "totally false letter1 in support of a licence application by Sherrell Hague Ltd., ofThurgoland,Sheffield, was strongly criticized by Miss E. Havers at the Transport Tribunal last week. Counsel represented Robert Earl and Sons (Transport) Ltd., Thos. Smith (Sheffield) Ltd., Barber Road Services Ltd. and Leonard Green (Haulage) Ltd., who appealed against the grant of a new A licence for four vehicles by the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority. The appeal was allowed in part.
Sherrell Hague Ltd. responded to the appeal, and were represented by Mr. M. W. Fothergill, a director.
Miss Havers said that prior to 1963 six vehicles of G. E. Haig and Sons were on Contract A licence with Truestone Ltd. On formation of Sherrell Hague Ltd., with no change in management, a new A licence was applied for with the normal user "Mainly goods for Truestone Ltd., as required". This application was supported by a letter from the contract customer, yet no work had been done for Truestone in the previous II months. In fact, the vehicles had been working mainly for Samuel Fox and Co. Ltd.
Continuing, counsel said there was a belated subsequent application by the respondents at which their advocate had said that Truestone's work should be deleted from the normal user. The appellants felt strongly that the total departure from normal user in the 1965 application misled the LA, who certainly would not have granted a licence had he known that no work was being done for the main customer named in the user. At the time. said Miss Havers, Samuel Fox were affected by the steel recession and they had no need for Sherrell Hague's services, with other hauliers on their books with spare capacity. Throughout the case, she concluded. Mr. Hague had quite unjustifiably placed all blame on the LA's office, and at no time had any apology been tendered for this action.
Mr. Fothergill said he appeared in the absence, through illness, of the managing director of the company. He apologized for the production of the letter from Truestone Ltd. at the public inquiry, for this was definitely misleading and untruthful. Mr. Hague now realized that his action had jeopardized all he had worked for since 1937.
All four objectors, said Mr. Fothergill, objected because suitable transport facilities existed, but they were not engaged on Samuel Fox work and the hauliers who were did not object. The objectors in cross-examination had admitted that their fleets were occupied. On behalf of the directors, he was authorized to say that the vehicles would be used mainly for Samuel Fox work.
President of the Tribunal, Mr. G. D. Squibb, giving judgment, said the respondent's conduct merited a penalty but they felt it would be unduly harsh to impose one that would put them out of business. It should, however, be a substantial one and. they had decided to delete the two smaller vehicles of 5 and 4+ tons unladen weight from the licence. "To that extent", said the president. "this appeal is allowed."