Bankrupt was not a fit person for TML
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
4N APPEAL by Mr Trevor Beacock, trading as M & R Haulage las been dismissed by the Transport Tribunal. The appeal was igainst a decision of the Deputy Licensing Authority for the Yorkshire Traffic Area.
The appellant was an adjudicated bankrupt on 29 November 1973 but the LA was unaware of this when he granted him a new licence for 3 vehicles and 3 trailers to run from 1 January 1977. At this time Mr Beacock was managing what had been his haulage business for Mrs M R Maddra, who did not hold an Operator's licence. The LA did riot discover this until he came to consider an application for the variation of the licence made by Mr Beacock in 1979.
As a result of this discovery, the LA called him to a public inquiry under s.69(1 )(d) of the Transport Act 1968 so that it .,..ould be considered whether us licence should be revoked, suspended, curtailed or prexiaturely terminated on the grounds that he had been adludicated bankrupt.
The public inquiry was held ln 5 Decemeber 1979. The case was heard with an application )y Mrs Maddra for an Dperator's licence with the ippellant named as her pro)osed transport manager. Mrs Vladdra's application failed on ,he ground that the deputy LA ould not find that the Appelant was a person of good 'epute, suitable to be ?„mployed as the transport nanager. Mrs Maddra has not ippealed against that decision.
Mr M Grassam, who appnred for the appellant before he deputy LA and the Tribuial, argued that the depty LA was wrong in revoking the icence instead of suspending t until the appellent obtained us discharge which he did on .7 January 1980.
Mr Grassam's main contenion was that the deputy LA 'red in taking into consideraion the appellant's past .ecord, which, Mr Grassam irgued, was relevant only to the question of whether the appellant was a fit person to be employed at Mrs Maddra's transport manager.
The Tribunal considered if action taken under s.69(1)(d) with regard to a licence of which the holder has been adjudicated bankrupt, differs from action taken under the other provisions of s.69(1) in that it is not a penalty for past shortcomings on the part of the holder of the licence, and that it is therefore inappropriate to look for either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. All that had to be considered says the Tribunals written decision is whether it is consistent with the purposes of Part V of the Act that a person who has been adjudicated bankrupt should continue to hold a licence.
The Tribunal says that when the appellant was adjudicated bankrupt in 1973 he no longer had adequate financial resources available to enable him to comply with the requirements of Part V. If the LA had known of this when the appellant applied for a new licence in 1976 the application would have been refused.
'The fact that the appellant has been bankrupt does not prejudice his prospect of obtaining a new licence after his discharge but the fact that he has previously held a licence should not place him in a more advantageous position than a person who has not previously held a licence' says the Tribunal.
The decision says that revocation is prima-facie the right course for a LA to take upon the bankruptcy of the holder of an Operator's licence but some lesser action is legally permissible and may be justifiable if the circumstances of a case warrant it.