'Stern Disapproval' by Transport Tribunal
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TN a strong worded judgment, the Trans
port Tribunal has allowed the appeal of S. and R. Smyth and others against the grant of a new A licence for two vehicles to Brewer and Turnbull (Liverpool) Ltd. by the North Western deputy LA. (COMMERCIAL. MOTOR, March 11). The Tribunal criticizes the previous conduct of the respondents who, in the name of a dormant subsidiary company named Movanstor Manchester) Ltd., purchased the two vehicles from a Mr. J. Jeffers, of Bootle, which had the normal user "General goods, mainly tannery materials and extracts within 40 miles of base."
After a licence grant in chambers for the two vehicles in 1961, "the vehicles were not used on a single occasion for carrying tanning products", and a few days after the grant the name of the respondent company was changed to Brewer and Turnbull (Liverpool) Ltd.
Brewer and Turnbull (Liverpool) Ltd. built up a substantial business and their revenue was over £26,000 in 1964/5. In May, 1965, they applied for a new A licence for two vellieles with a normal user given as
"Furniture and household effects and removals as required. Goods within 40 miles of base." There were nine objectors.
The judgment states: "The deputy Licensing Authority's decision to suspend one vehicle for three months might have been appropriate had the case been concerned with departures from a declaration of normal user originally made in good faith. In our view it was wholly inappropriate in a case in which the declaration was made, as we infer from the evidence, for the purpose of discouraging potential objectors and deceiving the Licensing Authority. This is not merely a case in which a statement of intention has not been fulfilled: it is a case in which a statement of intention was made with no intention of it being fulfilled".
The judgment concludes: "This is conduct on the part of a carrier of goods which cannot be regarded with anything other than stern disapproval. In our view the interests of the public in ensuring the observance of the provisions of the Act of 1960 require us to come to the conclusion that this application ought not to have been granted".