1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
New service would aid exports
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DEVALUATION was mentioned in evidence at the Metropolitan traffic court on Monday. For M. and S. Shipping Ltd, Mr. M. H. JacksonLipkin, told the LA: "Your granting of this application would cause an almost immediate increase in
exports".
M. and S. was applying for an eightvehicle B licence to carry goods between Britain and the Continent, using complete container vehicles. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said the through-transport system provided speed, efficiency and cheapness. On the first day of the hearing (CM, August 18) supporting witnesses had come from abroad.
For the objectors, Coward Bros. (Haulage) Ltd, and the THC, Mr. P.
Kenworthy-Browne and Mr. C. Shiemann respectively, spoke of an abundance of existing transport in this field, and maintained that M. and S. would merely be duplicating existing services.
Export manager of Coward Bros., Mr. A. B. Paget said M. and S. could expect greater efficiency with a through service—but greater costs also. He spoke from experience with Channel Roadways.
Supporting the application, Mr. W. F. Kirby, transport manager of Kay Display and Exhibitions Ltd, said he considered Mr. M. Gluck's proposed service would be ideal— and cheaper too.
Mr. Gluck is managing director of M. and S. Mr. Kirby said there was little control of foreign drivers, and he gave an example of wrong collection of a trailer from a Rotterdam park. There were delays, too.
Mr. Scheimann said two drivers would be needed on a through-service vehicle, so costs must rise. The ease was a "back-door application" and a "dodge that should fail".
Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said the onus was on the objector; there was a prima facie case for M. and S.
Retold Mr. Muir, the LA: "You must consider the general public interest. You decide an application on a balance of probabilities."
Mr. Muir reserved his decision.