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 
Decision reversed
Page 128
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The appeal by Tovey Transport Ltd., Happisborough, which the Transport Tribunal heard on Tuesday was allowed.
The appeal, said Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the appellant, was brought about by the granting by the Eastern LA of a B licence to Knights Motors (CM, January 12). Originally Knights had applied for a licence for four vehicles with the condition: spent chemicals, sludge, sewage and boiler scale within 50 miles and elsewhere under boiler and storage tank contracts. But after hearing the case the LA decided to grant a licence for one vehicle with the condition: spent chemicals, sludge, sewage and boiler scale within 25 miles and for Norfolk Chemicals Ltd. any distance.
The application, said Mr. Yorke, was ambitious in both quantum and intent. It was obvious that Mr. Knight wished to go into business "in a big way".
He would, continued Mr. Yorke, make five submissions to the Tribunal to explain why the grant should not have been made. These were:— (i) That there was no evidence given as to the need for the service within 25 miles; (ii) That the evidence given by Norfolk Chemicals was insufficient for the second part of the grant; (iii) That the objectors had made out the statutory objection showing that they had the capacity to carry out the work;
(iv) That such evidence for the Norfolk Chemical traffic was based either on illegal past running or allegations concerning the difference in rates of other operators;
(v) That there was admitted to have been a decline in the requirements for cesspool emptying in the area concerned.
Mr. Yorke supported his first submission by reminding the Tribunal that, from the list of 23 prospective customers produced by Mr. Knight, not one had' been able to attend the inquiry.
As Norfolk Chemicals had been without Mr. Knight's services from July 1967 to January 1968, it was Mr. Yorke's contention that this service was not indispensable.
As for the objectors proving that they could satisfy the demand for service, Mr. Yorke referred to that part of the inquiry where Mobile Clearance Ltd. stated that its Attleborough vehicles alone could cope with all the work Mr. Knight hoped to do.
Giving the Tribunal's reasons for allowing the appeal, Mr. G. D. Squibb, the president, said that regarding the lack of evidence the LA had taken "a far too lenient view of the case". Had the respondent brought support from his 23 prospective customers, he continued, there might well have been a case made out for a grant within a limited radius of about five or 10 miles.