Tribunal Criticizes Evidence
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pannouncing a decision reversing at of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority (Mr. Joseph Farridale), the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Rowancl Harker, K.C., made some pointed comments on the question of evidence.
Ile said: "We have been much struck, in the course of hearing appeals, this week, at Harrogate, by the lack of insistence by the Licensing Authority on the necessity of applicants giving some tangible and detailed evidence in support of their applications. Our decisions on appeals may not, in one sense, be binding on the Licensing Authority, except, of course, in the particular case, but it would, in one opinion, be unfortunate for all concerned if our decisions were not followed in cases to which they are applicable. The ultimate result might well be that one party or another would be put to the expense of an appeal, which would not otherwise have been lodged.
" There will he no order as to costs in this appeal, but we feel bound to say that, if, in the future, after what we have said to-day, we have,to deal With decisions which have been given on such vague evidence, we shall have eeriously to consider awarding the successful party an appropriate amount of costs."
Mr. Harker made these remarks in allowing an appeal' by the London and North Eastern Railway Co. against the Yorkshire Licensing Authority's decision to grant an A licence to Mr. John Brownbridge, of Halm; near Goole.
A vigorous reply to Mr. Harker's comments was made by Mr. Frank G. Bit-things, general secretary of the Yorkshire Stage Carriage Operators Association, in a speech at Selby, on March 14. He resented Mr. Harker's strictures on Mr. Farndale, which, he declared, were not justified. He was performing his duties with a hunianity and understanding which, declared Mr. Bibbings, were lacking in the Appeal Tribunal.
Mr. Hibbing's again attacked the Tribunal in a speech in Leeds, last Friday, when he declared that it was obvious that the Tribunal was functioning in accordance with the administrative policy of the Minister of Transport. He claimed that that policy was in direct contradiction of the intentions of members of the House of Commons who had voted in favour of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 19:13.