AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tran s port Tribunal

23rd February 1962
Page 47
Page 47, 23rd February 1962 — Tran s port Tribunal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• n Scotland

Take-over Principle is Resolved

THE refusal of a clearing house to continue to use vehicles authorized to a business which had chaned hands was no reason for the refusal of part of a take-over application, the Transport Tribunal's president, • Sir Hubert Hull, said last week at Edinburgh.

Universal Hauliers (Aberdeen), Ltd.. were appealing against a decision of the Scottish Licensing Authority who granted one vehicle, instead of two A licensed vehicles applied for, in a take-over of the unexpired portion of a licence held by A. S. Walker.

Mr. W. A. Connochie, for the appellants, said that about 70 per cent, of the goodwill was agricultural goods obtained through the North Eastern Transport Co., which was a clearing house. The clearing house had decided not to give their work, which was formerly done by Walkers, to the appellants and would not support their application, but his clients had obtained other traffic to make good the loss. Customers who had previously used the vehicles had said they were willing to use the appellants' vehicles.

Mr. A. B. Wilkinson, for the respond

ents, the said that, with the. changed conditions, the appellants were seeking traffic over their whole area which formerly came mainly from the north-east area. Giving the Tribunal's decision, Sir Hubert said that it was obvious that the vehicles continued to be fully employed after the sale agreement. The only point of principle was whether the appellants could rely on evidence other than that of the vendor's customers. The Tribunal was satisfied that this was so. For six months after the sale the two vehicles had done "within a few pounds" as much work as in the previous six months and there was a clear case for a grant.

L.A.'s Refusal was "Debatable"

THE refusal of the Scottish Deputy

Licensing Authority to renew a contract A licence because the contract stipulated no minimum payment was criticized last week by the Transport Tribunal.

The Tribunal was hearing an appeal by Alexander Watt, of Cromdale, Morayshire, against the Deputy Authority's decision not to allow him an A-licensed vehicle to carry distillery products for Tormare Distillery and Scottish Agricultural Industries, Ltd.

For the appellant, Mr. W. D. Connochie said that his client had two

contract licences with the Tormore Distillery and a third on contract to S.A.I., Ltd. An application for the renewal of one of the Tormore vehicles was refused because there was no guaranteed minimum sum stated in the contract.

As the output of the distillery was expanding, an. application had been made for an A-licensed vehicle to carry goods for both customers. This-was refused.

Allowing the appeal, the president of the Tribunal, Sir Hubert Hull, said that the "odd reason" for the refusal of he authority to renew the contract licence was "a very debatable reason." The appeal, succeeded by a narrow margin, the main reason being that the Tribunal thought that the haulier previously carrying out the work should continue to do so, but the appellant should not apply for another contract A licence unless he was prepared to surrender the A licence the Tribunal were prepared to grant.

The Awkward Maze

AN appellant before the Transport Tribunal last week was advised by the president, Sir Hubert Hull, to put himself in the hands of qualified people who could instruct him. "The appellant should be prepared to give all particulars of operations and produce his drivers' records," Sir Hubert added. 0

Sir Hubert was giving the Tribunal's decision in an application by Archibald Ferguson, of Ardrishaig, Argyllshire, who was appealing against a refusal by the Scottish Licensing Authority to grant one vehicle on A licence.

Mr. A. B. Wilkinson, for the B.T.C., said that the only document lodged in the case was a solicitor's letter, which had been obtained the night before the hearing of the application. It was surprising that, between October, 1961 and the present, the appellant had not approached his auditors and asked for a copy of their audited statement. There was no means of knowing whether the earnings—stated in the letter to be in respect of one vehicle—were in fact confined to one vehicle. The evidence was totally insufficient.

Referring the case back to the Licensing Authority, Sir Hubert said that he did not propose to cite facts which covered the present case, very few of which had been established on a sound footing.

Mr. Ferguson seems to have taken up the attitude of assuming that the Traffic Acts and regulations were a maze, put there to make things awkward for hauliers," he added. An adherence to this view had brought the appellant to his present position.

In referring the case back, the Tribunal suggested that if the case could not be heard within the next two months, the Authority should consider giving the appellant a short-term licence.

(More Transport Tribunal decisions appear overleaf.)


comments powered by Disqus