Tribunal Reserves Judgment in 'Blood-related' Companies Case
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A N attempt by a " blood-related " transport company to obtain a fivevehicle A licence was the subject of an appeal to the Transport Tribunal, sitting in Edinburgh, on Tuesday.
Mr. T. H. Campbell-Wardlaw represented Hoddam Transport Ltd., of Ecclefechan, Lockerbie, in appealing against the refusal of a five-vehicle A licence by the Scottish Licensing Authority. Mr. John Murray appeared for the respondents, British Railways Board and others.
Mr. Campbell-Wardlaw said that the Hoddatn Contracting Company, whose two partners were also directors of Hoddam Transport Ltd., had held B licences since 1953. Originally the Contracting Co. vehicles were partly used on their own quarry and gravel works, but now the vehicles were almost exclusively occupied by carriers' work. The five tippers involved earned nearly £20,000 per annum.
In 1964, Hoddam Transport Ltd. was formed and the Transport activities of the Contracting Co. were divorced from their other work. The two concerns were separate legal entities, Mr. Campbell
WardIaw went on, and if the A licence had been granted the transport work of existing customers of the Contracting Company would have been continued. In the absence of rebutting evidence from the objectors, the application should have been granted, for there had been no attempt to demonstrate that anyone else could do it.
Mr. Murray suggested that the LA had correctly exercised his discretion and the decision should be upheld. This was a case of a " blood-related " firm's agreement to surrender licences if the new application were to succeed. The change was virtually a paper change; there was no prima fade evidence to justify an A licence. The customers had expressed no desire for change and Mr. Murray wondered what would have happened if Hoddam Contracting Company had applied for an A licence and offered to surrender its B licences.
Asking for the appeal to be refused, Mr. Murray argued that if his plea were rejected the case should be remitted back to the LA.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said the decision would be put in writing.