AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence Revocation Was Wrong

24th April 1959, Page 53
24th April 1959
Page 53
Page 53, 24th April 1959 — Licence Revocation Was Wrong
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?

THE revocation of a special A licence covering three vehicles owned by Mr. Percy Finnic, New Pitsligo, Aberdeenshire, was criticized last week I by the Transport Tribunal. Sir Hubert Hull, president, said the Scottish Licensing Authority should have suspended the licence for a period of not more than six months.

Mr. Finnie was appealing against the decision, which was made last October, on the ground that he had changed the base of the vehicles. On his behalf, Mr. W. D. Connochie claimed that when the revocation decision was made, Mr. Finnic had already assigned the licence to another party, and a licence which had been assigned could not be revoked.

The Tribunal ordered that the case should be referred back to the Licensing Authority. Giving judgment, Sir Hubert recalled that Mr. Finnic obtained the licence in August,. 1955, saying he proposed to base the three vehicles at Airdrie. In May, 1958, the Licensing Authority held a public inquiry to decide

whether the licence should be suspended or revoked on the ground that a different base had been used, °hut he gave, Mr. Finnie time to put his house in order.

Five months later, the Authority came to the conclusion that Mr:, Finnic .had not taken advantage of his offer, and he suspended the, licence. The Tribtinal agreed that the Airdrie base had not been used, and the proper penalty should have been suspension for up to six month's.

There was a complicating factor—Mr. Finnie's claim that when the order was made the licence had been assigned to Laird and Co., Edinburgh. However, on this point the Tribunal would give no view because they had lot sufficient facts. Laird's take-over application had not yet been heard, and the Authority should consider it first. "

If he decided that 'there was nothing to prevent a transfer, Mr. Finnic could not be penalized. But if the transfer were refused, the Authority would then have to decide to what extent Mr. Finnic was to be punished.


comments powered by Disqus