Clearing House May be Customer
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" WJE are unable to accept the pro W position that no clearing house (whether it has obtained control of a haulier's business or not) can be regarded as the customer of the haulier for the purpose of enabling the latter, on an application for additional vehicles or tonnage, to prove expansion ot business."
The Transport [Appeal] Tribunal makes this statement in its decision on the appeal by Griffin Bros. (Highbury), Ltd., against the refusal by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to add two vehicles, each of 21tons unladen weight, to its A licence. The Railway and Road Haulage Executives Were the respondents.
A. Packharn-and Co., Ltd., a clearing house, acquired the shares of the Griffin concern in March, 1950; to reduce difficulties in Obtaining hired transport. The Authority stated in his decision on the company's application: "Any inconvenience suffered by their (Griffin's) regular customers was not due to the Jack. of vehicles, but due to the fact that the applicants had diverted vehicles to work provided by the clearing house."
In his report on the company's notice of appeal, he further stated: "1 do not regard an increase in the work of a clearing house as an indication of an expansion of trade or business in the district, and to satisfy me on that point I would require evidence from the clearing house's trader customers to that effect....
"If this application were granted, there is nothing to prevent more vehicles being diverted to the clearing house work and further applications A28 being made to provide still more Vehicles io meet inconvenience caused to regular customers. This must affect the interest of existing hauliers who rely on the clearing house for their work."
Counsel for the Executives submitted to the Tribunal that the Packham company was not entitled to be treated as a customer of gie appellant. He disagreed with oarosing counsel, who argued that the Authority, in saying that Packham's could not be regarded as the appellant's customers, had deviated from the Tribunal's decision in the Hawker No. 3 and Archbold appeals.
The term "customer" in the decided cases, it was contended for the respondents, referred to the person at whose instance the goods were carried, and not necessarily to the person who paid for the haulage. The Hawker and Archhold cases were therefore distinguishable. Griffin's had not dischargedthe onus of proof, the Executives submitted.
The Tribunal observes: "In the present appeal, we 'are satisfied on the evidence that A. Packham and Co., Ltd., were in fact customers of the appellants from March, 1950, onwards and occupied the same position vis-avis the appellants as the ordinary customer of a haulier does who goes direct to the haulier of his choice and engages his services without the intervention of aa agent."
No other hauliers except the respondents thought fit to object to Griffin's application, it is pointed out. The Authority has been directed to add cne vehicle of 21 tons unladen weight to the appellant's licence.