Scottish Appeal Against House of Fraser Grant is Rejected
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RUSSELL APPEAL UPHELD BY COURT THE First Division Court of Session in Edinburgh dismissed the appeal by British Railways Board and others against the grant to House of Fraser, of Glasgow, subsidiaries and associates, of a B licence for 32 vehicles in place of 40 vehicles on C operation, confirming the decision of the Transport Tribunal (The Contmereial Motor, July 10 and 17).
Lord President Clyde rejected all the grounds of appeal. The principles of natural justice had not been contravened, he said; the procedures adopted might have been unusual, but not unfair, every opportunity having been granted to the objectors to make their case; the letter by the Licensing Authority had been objected to but was not a final decision.
The main ground of appeal was that the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the evidence of only one man. Lord Clyde criticized procedure whereby it was necessary to show need;-it was quite irrelevant to accept that rigid rules of procedure should be established. Determination in each case must depend on
the discretion vested in the Licensing Authority. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.
In the John Russell (Grangemouth) appeal the court upheld Russell and returned the application to the Licensing Authority for re-hearing. The original application was for 12 artics on A licence which was granted in respect of six and then reversed when British Railways Board and Road Services (Caledonian) appealed. The Tribunal awarded an extra vehicle but imposed a B licence.
Before the Court of Session, the appellants contended that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law in that it had based its decision on the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Merchandise Transport case, and that it had held that an undertaking had been given by Mr. J. Russell that the vehicles would be used only to carry outward loads for Scottish Meat Producers Ltd., which was an unreasonable inference; the replies given by Mr. Russell in cross-examination were in respect of normal user, and were not a binding undertaking relating to the conditions of a B licence.
Also, the appellants maintained that, having found that there was a need for seven vehicles to carry meat to England and Wales, the Tribunal should have granted an A licence in respect of those vehicles.
Giving the Court of Session's ruling, the Lord President said that no undertaking had been given at any stage that the outward traffic would be confined solely to one customer, therefore the Merchandise Transport case did not apply. Costs were awarded to the appellants.