AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Disquiet at Lack of Tribunal Guidance

23rd November 1962
Page 38
Page 38, 23rd November 1962 — Disquiet at Lack of Tribunal Guidance
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?

SOME disquiet and disappointment are felt, I understand, at the way the Transport Tribunal, under its new president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, appears to be ignoring the general and important issues raised by some appeals on the ground that, for souse technical reason, any order they would make would not be effective.

The industry and Licensing Authorities look very much to the Tribunal for guidance as to the general principles they should follow, and they will not take kindly to being deprived of that guidance on the grounds of technicalities ill-suited to an administrative, as opposed to a judicial, system.

During the last appeal session in London, -a case was partly heard—an appeal by seven hauliers and the B.T.C. against a licence granted by the deputy Metro'politan Licensing Authority to Regan Brothers (Haulage) Ltd.—and then dismissed, leaving several important questions unanswered.

To the appellants (they were, of course, the objectors in the actual application hearing) it must seem unfair and illogical that, because certain vehicles have been allowed to operate through a " mistake " on the part of the deputy Authority, the Tribunal—which is purported to be a body set up to put right mistakes of Licensing Authorities—cannot put the matters to rights.

Regan's held two A licences, one of which, for nine vehicles, was due to expire on February 28, 1961. The company applied for a new licence, but a few days later sought a variation of the old licence by the addition of nine extra vehicles. The latter application, in which the applicant undertook to give up 12 contract A vehicles, was heard and granted.

The existing licence, it appeared, would have come to an end before the decision was given, but it continued in force in the usual way because of the follow-on, pending application, which was, in fact, heard on the same day.

The deputy Authority " married " the two applications and granted an A licence to run from March 1, specifying the existing nine vehicles and adding the additional nine, the subject of the variation application.

Now, rightly, the Tribunal decided that the L.A.'s action was misconceived. The decision to add nine vehicles, it said, could not be related to the new licence; the application for-them had been made in respect of the old licence, and since this had come to an end when the new one was granted, the decision could have no effect.

The appellants (the objectors to Regan) before the Tribunal contended that the contract licences to be surrendered were not in force at the relevant time. Indeed, the second ground of their Notice of Appeal reads: "The L.A. failed to have due regard to the fact that all the said contracts were entered into after the date of the application ". Another important ground of appeal was the contention that the facts established before the Authority showed that the application was submitted by Regan "without the knowledge of the other parties to the said contracts ", and that the L.A. failed to have regard to this fact.

• There were another seven grounds of appeal—the usual ones that the decision was against the weight of the evidence, etc.

The Tribunal, being invited by Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the appellants, to consider the grant on its merits, refused to do so—a decision in law which was right. However, the appellants went on to ask the Tribunal to give directions to the L.A. to assist him to find a proper way out of the morass, and the Tribunal's reply was this: "It is not incumbent on the Tribunal to advise parties as to the steps to take to sort out the complications ". They then dismissed the appeal.

No wonder the parties concerned felt some disquiet. Their only remedy now, it would seem, is to apply for Orders of Mandamus and Certiorari in the Lord Chief Justice's court—a costly and lengthy business, to say the least. They appear to have been deprived of the right to be heard on their appeal from the deputy L.A., a right granted to them by Parliament under section 181 of the 1960 Act.

On the first day that the " new " Tribunal sat in London, at the end of October, it declined to hear the appeal of B. J. Howlett and Co: Ltd., after acceding to a preliminary submission by Mr. J. M. Timmons on behalf of the B.T.C. that the licence, the subject of the appeal, had expired between the hearing of the application and the hearing of the appeal.

The circumstances, the Tribunal agreed with Mr. Timmons, were similar to those in the appeal of H. L. Walker Ltd. and the B.T.C. (Traffic Cases 32, part 1). But, halfway through the then President's judgment, after stating why the Tribunal could not proceed with the appeal, Sir Hubert Hull said this: "We shall therefore make no order on this appeal, but since it raised a point cit law of general importance, we will state what our opinion about that would have been if we had given a decision on appeal ".

It seems a great pity that the new Tribunal did not adopt the same downto-earth approach in the Regan appeal. No doubt the Tribunal is feeling its way in a spate of appeals that appears almost to be overwhelming. The new President is spoken very highly of for the way he deals with points of law during " proper " appeals, and it seems a pity that his guidance is lacking in those which are misconceived, no matter for what reason. When the Tribunal has caught up with the tremendous backlog of pending appeals, it is to be hoped that the time lag between the hearing of an application and the hearing of the appeal will be such that licences will not, in the meantime, cease.


comments powered by Disqus