"Previous Conduct" Outside Tribunal's Powers
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Appeal by Film Transporter Against Refusal of A Licence Allowed With Costs •
UNUSUAL circumstances surrounded the appeal of Mr. C. J. Hazen, 9, Nile Road, nightield, Southampton, against the South Eastern Licensing Authority's refusal ;to renew his A licence to . enable him to continue the film-transport facilities. which he had hitherto offered. Southern Counties Road Transport Co., Ltd., responded.
Mr. N. R. Fox-Andrews, for the respondent, held that, on account of Mr. Hazel's previous conduct as a .carrier of goods,he was unlit to continue operation and that he had not proved need. So far as previous conduct is concerned, Mr. Fox-Andrews relied on the circumstances in which the appellant obtained possession of the two vehicles which he used when he began business on his own account.
"Counsel also referred to alleged improper methods employed in obtaining the custom of certain persons whitilitiad previously dealt with the Hampshire Transport Co., Ltd.
Briefly, the facts are that Mr. Hazel . was at one time secretary of the Hampshire concern, which went into liquidation. The goodwill of that company was sold to the Southern Counties undertaking, but Mr. Hazen obtained possession of two vehicles awned by the Hampshire concern. Following legal proceedings brought by the Hampshire company's receiver, Mr. . Justice Charles found that Mr. Hazel had unlawfully converted the two vehicles to his own use.
The Appeal Tribunal, in its decision, announced last week, pointed out that at the time of the transaction, Mr. Hazel' was not a carrier of goods and, therefore, his conduct in relation to obtaining possession of the two vehicles was not in his capacity as a carrier. Moreover, the appellant was entitled to canvas ex-customers of the Hampshire company.
In the Tribunal's opinion, the evidence proved conclusively that MrHazell's vehicles had been fully employed and that there had been no
material change in the circumstances of his business. It had not been suggested that the appellant's facilities were not suitable, but it was submitted that, it the application were .granted, the transport pool would be in excess of requirements.
On the question of " excess of facilities,— the Tribunal thought itself entitled to consider the circumstances connected with the Southern Counties company's own licence application.
The company was granted an A licence for three vehicles (claimed tonnage) and one vehicle (discretionary tonnage), and, at the time of the inquiry, the Southern Counties concern kneW that Mr. Hazel was providing facilities similar to its own-. " The Licensing Authority Must have been satisfied that the discretionary tonnage was necessary and that he was not authorizing excessive suitable facilities, As there had been no suggestion that film-transport work had declined since that time, the Tribunal found it difficult to believe that Mr, Hazel's services were unnecessary. • The appeal was allowed with £9 18s. 4d. costs,