1953 Act Not Retrospective : No Managing Agreements
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Act, 1953, is not retrospective in its effects on applications for A and B licences. This is made clear by the Transport [Appeal] Tribunal in their reasons, given last week, for dismissing the appeals by Ely Transport, Ltd., Cardiff, and three small operators. • They also declared that no managing agreements existed between the Ely company and the other operators.
Ely Transport, Ltd., appealed against the refusal of the South Wales Licensing Authority to " transfer" licences from the businesses of Mrs. A. F. Vincent, Mr. E. J. Williams, Mr. H. Cryer and Mr. John, all of Cardiff. Mrs. Vincent, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cryer appealed against the refusal of the renewal of their licences. The appeals were lodged before the Transport Act, 1953, was passed.
Few AppeaLs Pending In giving the Tribunal's reasons for dismissing the appeals, Mr. 11.1.1bert Hull, president, said that the 1953 Act had no application to cases heard before it was passed. The Tribunal did not consider that the matter was of great importance, as there were few appeals pending under the old Act.
The Tribunal's view was that the so-called managing agreements between Mr. Greatrex, managing director of Ely Transport, Ltd., and Mr. Williams, Mrs. Vincent and Mr. Cryer were not, in fact, managing agreements. Mr. Greatrex, said Mr. Hull, did not manage the vehicles of these three operators, but treated them as aggregated by his • own company.
" Mr. Greatrex paid his principals or his employers nothing, kept no separate accounts for the vehicles, rendered no accounts, maintained the vehicles, paid the drivers and, presumably paid the tax. "To contend that he managed the vehicles is really playing with words," declared Mr. Hull.
No Adequate Goodwill None of the four licensees, on the • evidence, had such goodwill as would satisfy the requirements expressed in the Boston Haulage line of cases. Mr. Williams, Mrs. Vincent and Mr. Cryer did not, moreover, submit any evidence that would justify the renewal of their licences. The Tribunal thought they were more sinned against than sinning.
In dismissing the Ely company's appeals, Mr. Hull said that, unfortunately, the Tribunal had no power to award costs. Although the appeals of the other three operators would be dismissed, they would be able to run their vehicles until the new applications had been determined by the Licensing Authority.
Mr. Rosser John, for the respondents, said that he understood that Ely Transport, Ltd., had submitted an application for five additional vehicles. He believed that the other three appellants had not yet submitted fresh applications.