DECISION RESERVED ON MUNSON APPEAL
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NAAJOR conflicts on the interpretaIVI tion of the evidence were revealed before the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday during the hearing of an appeal by 1). R. Munson, of Colchester, against the refusal of the Eastern deputy Licensing Authority to add four 12-ton artics to his A licence. Judgment was reserved.
Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the appellant, suggested that the deputy Authority, Mr. J. Gazdar, had been unfair in holding that 70 per cent of the applicant's work represented back loads from the London Brick Company's Bedfordshire yards and that this was at the expense of originated movements— principally timber—from Felixstowe Docks.
Evidence from the witness for Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and from a number of customers' letters, indicated a shortage of transport facilities at Felixstowe Docks. The objectors, with little or no stake in the matter, should be prepared to prove they could do the work, said Mr. Jackson-Lipkin.
Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the Transport Holding Company and Ives and Smith (a company recently taken over by the T.H.C.) who, with British Railways, were respondents to the appeal, said that the London Brick Company's work was worth more than any three of the appellant's other customers. Their base, however, was not within the normal user. Indeed, if necessary, Munson had admitted that he would run empty to Bedford to collect bricks for East Anglia.
After prolonged discussion by advocates as to the reliability of the figures supporting the application, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin conceded that the Tribunal could not assess quantum and urged that the case should be remitted back to the Licensing Authority for a decision on this point.