LICENSING CASEBOOK
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY NORMAN H. TILSLEY •
statement that among the matters which he had taken into account wa a dechtra: tion as to normal user in that form.
So, having agreed with Sutton that " general goods" was the right description, the Tribunal has said that the appeal fails because the deputy L.A. had granted the material part of the application---the six vehicles. Anything else that he may have said and which was subsequently -published in A.s and
was itriniaterial and must be dis regarded. • , _ •
Following on from that it would appear that the only remedy for 'Sutton --and this waS mentioned during the appeal hearing—is to Operate the vehicles as they originally intended; to be prepared to be called before the Licensing Authority under Section 178 (the revocation and suspension section) for not adhering to its declaration of normal user, and for the matter to be thrashed out before the Licensing Authority. In that case it would be necessary for the transcript of the application to be perused, when it would be found that Sutton in fact declared its intention to carry "general goods "!
As 1 said in opening, this decision cannot but cause bewilderment in the industryespecially the Tribunal's .indication that it is only -the number of vehicles granted in As and Ds that is material.
In Licensing Casebook in October, 1963. when I reviewed the case before the Authority, I said: "licensing can retard progress". The Tribunal's judgment does not lead me to alter that o pinion