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 
Haulier wins appeal against suspension
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal on Tuesda
London allowed the appeal of Brown Wright (Haulage) Ltd. against the decisk the Eastern, deputy Licensing Authorit suspend its B licence covering eight vet for one month for carrying goods in breal conditions of their licence.
For the appellant, Mr. M.H. Jackson-L said that there had never been a proper inq "The proceedings", said Mr. Jackson-Li "were conducted by the deputy LA who also taken the case of Ipswich Deliverie: which an appeal was subsequently allc This particular deputy LA is always an: to get certain kinds of figures but in this he never directed his mind to whether company was guilty of carrying canned g in breach of the licence."
Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said that he did no' the way the proceedings had been instit When Brown and Wright had applied renewal of its licence in January the deputâ– had said he was satisfied of the guilt ol applicant before the inquiry. No proper n had been given and the applicant had never told what he was supposed to have been guilt "1 find it difficult to see why the de Licensing Authority was conducting the ccedings in this way", he continued. inquiry was more of an inquisition that inquiry."'