Lords Reserve Decision on 'C' Appeal
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DEMARCATION dispute (" who I-1 carries what ") affecting Cand Alicence holders produced a legal tangle before the Lords of Appeal this week when Hall and Ham River Ltd. appeared as respondents in an appeal brought by the Treasury solicitor. Judgment was reserved and will be announced after Whitsun. (Progress of the case was reported in The Commercial Motor on May 1, May 8, December 4 and December 18. 1964.) A sand and gravel lorry owned by Halt and Ham River and operating under a C licence was stopped by a Ministry traffic examiner on December 20, 1963 when carrying a load of building-site rubbish. This was being taken from a Yeomans Ltd. building site in Middlesex to a Hall and Ham River excavation at Bedford, under a contract to remove and dispose of the site spoil, for which "Yeomans paid 8s. 6d. a yard.
It was contended that Hall and Ham River was carrying the rubbish "for hire or reward " and therefore contravening the company's C-licence requirements.
The Hall and Ham River case, however. was that the rubbish was being carried as part of the firm's business, because the building spoil was intended to fill one of its excavations.
The contract with Yeomans was that the building firm agreed to divest itself of the rubbish when it was loaded on to the lorry: when it had been loaded it belonged to Hall and Ham River.
But Sir John Hobson, QC, appearing for the Treasury solicitor, submitted that Hall and Ham River was a sand and gravel company and it was no part of its business to carry building spoil. By doing so it was embarking on an activity limited to an A-licensed carrier.
The issue in this case, said Sir John, was whether a firm could carry spoil from a building site, in which it had no interest, in order to fill its own excavation, and at the same time be paid for haulage while operating a C licence.
The original summons had been heard by magistrates and had been dismissed. An appeal to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court had also been dismissed, but the court had given leave for a further appeal to the Lords.