AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

North Western Grant 'Inconsistent with Good Licensing Principles', Tribunal is Told

23rd October 1964
Page 38
Page 38, 23rd October 1964 — North Western Grant 'Inconsistent with Good Licensing Principles', Tribunal is Told
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?

A DECISION of the North Western 2-1. deputy Licensing Authority was described at the Transport Tribunal in London last week as "quite inconsistent with the principles of good licensing ". Mr. N. Carless, for the appellants, J. R. and G. T. Cadwallader, said that the decision allowed W. N. and R. T. Morris, of Llanfechain, Montgomeryshire, to add a 16-ton artic to an existing A licence. The Tribunal reserved judgment.

Mr. Carless said the grant authorized a normal user of mainly timber, building and road-making materials, livestock, solid fuel, agricultural produce,, plastic goods, steel and steel scrap and foodstuffs. This could very considerably affect the traffic carried by Cadwallader's, who would be adversely affected by such a wide normal user, contended Mr. Carless. The deputy L.A. had failed to appreciate the effect of such wide terms. Mr. Carless said the evidence given by Mr. Morris and his witnesses had been very sketchy and brief. He had said he was refusing work and could not subcontract because there was no one in the district who would help. But his requests for help were not made until well after the application was submitted:

It was extremely difficult, said Mr. Carless, to find out whether the A licepsed. vehicles to which it was sought to add the additional vehicle, were fully. employed_ The deputy L.A. should have ruled on the evidence that if there were to be any grant at all, it could not be made on such a wide declaration of normal user.

Mr. J. Edward Jones, for the respondent company, contended the appellants could not show that an additional vehicle would create an excess of facilities in the area. The evidence of the respondent company's customers supported the evidence that they needed another vehicle.


comments powered by Disqus