For HB Transport it's 'as you were' ruling by Tribunal
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal this week gave their decisions on two appeals by HB Transport (Maidstone) Ltd., against decisions by the South Eastern deputy Licensing Authority. One was dismissed, the other allowed.
HB had operated three vehicles on Contract A from 196 11965 for Williams and Williams Ltd., of Chester. Due to a downward trend the contract was terminated on October 311965.
HB then turned to Sheerness Harbour for traffic for four vehicles on A licence with conditions, "general goods mainly fruit, vegetables, timber, canned goods, marble and charcoal imported through Sheerness Harbour, mainly within 200 miles of operating centre."
Two of the objectors which the application attracted were prepared to withdraw if the application was modified by dropping "general goods" and reducing the vehicles to two. This was done but other objectors remained. The deputy LA granted the application as amended for one year. He stated in his written decision, "there is abundant haulage work for all."
Expectations HB's expectations did not materialise and it accepted other traffic which had not passed through Sheerness Harbour. It began to carry goods for Blue Cap Foods (Kent) Ltd., first of all as sub-contractors and then as the main contractor. During the period February 24 1966 to December 12 1966 this traffic had accounted for almost 25 per cent of its traffic.
During June and August 1966 the pro portion was considerably greater and in September HB applied for a new A licence for two vehicles conditioned, "fruit, vegetables, canned goods, agricultural products and some general goods within 230 miles of operating centre". To this application British Railways Board and Transport Holding Company objected.
At the public inquiry the condition was substantially reduced to read, "fruit, vegetables and canned goods imported through Sheerness Harbour and canned fruit and vegetables for Blue Cap Foods (Kent) Ltd., 200 miles". The respondents objected only to the Blue Cap traffic.
The deputy LA stated that he was not prepared to make a grant with the normal user as now stated but he would be prepared to grant the continuation of that originally given. This would have confined HB to the Sheerness Harbour traffic and meant no Blue Cap Traffic.
Without the acceptance of this offer by HB, there appeared in Applications and Decisions of February 9 1967 the continuation without modification of the original normal user.
After consultation with the LA's clerk, HB was told that in effect its application had been refused and as such it was published on March 9 1967.
HB lodged an appeal against the deputy LA's decision to grant a licence subject to amendment of the normal user and a further appeal against the second decision of the deputy LA to refuse the application.
The deputy LA, in the opinion of the Tribunal, had rejected the application because he felt there was insufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of Blue Cap traffic in the normal user. He had also regarded the carriage of Blue Cap traffic as illegal. Although he did not specifically mention it, the Tribunal considered that he had taken into account HB's previous conduct as a carrier.
The Tribunal's view was that although HB had carried the goods it did no more than prove that there was traffic to be carried by someone. It was satisfied that the deputy LA was correct in refusing the grant.
The Tribunal asked if HB would be prepared to make an amended declaration of normal user confined to Sheerness Harbour traffic. HB agreed to do so.
The Tribunal concluded that the deputy LA had no power to alter the declaration of normal user and to grant it in altered
form. This being the case the statement in Applications and Decisions was a state
ment which he had no power to make and so was a nullity. If this was so HB could not be aggrieved by it and had therefore no right of appeal. The first appeal was dismissed.
The appeal against the refusal was upheld in that HB had agreed to a normal user, "fruit and vegetables, tinned foodstuffs, all imported through Sheerness Harbour, all within 200 miles of operating centre." This was the original normal user held by the company, and it was also the condition continued by the deputy LA.