AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Railways Lose

26th June 1936, Page 65
26th June 1936
Page 65
Page 65, 26th June 1936 — Railways Lose
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE railways have lost the famous Smart case. The appeal by the G.W. and L.M.S. Railway companies, against the Western Licensing Authority's decision to grant an additional 2i-ton vehicle to Mr. George Smart

(Smart Transport Co.), Bristol, has been dismissed with £35 8s. costs.

It was in this case that Mr. B. de H.

Pereira', for the railways, submitted that, if an objector proved that adequate and suitable transport facilities existed in the district or between the places which an applicant intended to serve, the objector was entitled in law to have

the application dismissed. This contention was applied by him to renewals and variations, Whether or not the customers for whom the applicant is carrying or proposes to work were dealing with him during the basic year. Mr. Pereira relied on the Dunnett appeal decision.

The Railways Retract.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to give the national associations an opportunity of making representations. At the resumed hearing, .Mr. Alfred Tylor, who took up the case for the . railways, did not go so far as Mr.

Pereira and, in the present instance, ,Confined his argument to variations, reserving the right to apply the contention, on some future occasion, to renewals.' '

Smart Appeal

Mr. Tylor compromised by saying that, if the Licensing Authority concluded, on evidence, that physically there were ample facilities in the district to carry a certain person's traffic. but, having regard to the character of the traffic and to the particular conditions under which it had to be carried, he decided that the facilities provided by others, although physically sufficient, were not commercially suitable, the Authority was entitled to make a

grant accordingly. 4

Mr. N. R. Fox-Andrews, for certain of th6 associations, held that the word " suitable " in Section 11 '{2) meant more than " adequate," and that " requirements " referred to the needs of others than the • applicant and objector.

The Tribunal concludes, generally speaking, that it would not be in the public interest, or in the interests of persons requiring or providing transport, for additional vehicles to be authorized if excessive tonnage would thus he created, giving rise to wasteful competition. The Tribunal is not prepared to go so far as to say that, with the changing conditions of industry and coinmerce, there may not, in futuce, be cases in which a Licensing Authority would be properly exercising his disc,retion if he granted an application for additional vehicles, although suitable facilities existed and were, or would be, in excess of requirements.

In considering whether suitable facilities exist and whether they are or would be in excess of requirements, regard should be had to current industrial and commercial conditions.

L.M.S. Services Not Proved Suitable.

The Tribunal agrees with the submission regarding the interpretation of the words " suitable " and "requirements." Although the L.M.S. proved that its facilities were physically capable of dealing with traffic handled by Mr. Smart, proof was not given that they were suitable.

Mr. Smart satisfied the onus enunciated by the Tribunal in Beazley's case, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that, whether the assessment of the need for additional tonnage were made in accordance with the Hawker formula or on the basis of the Beasley case, the Western Licensing Authority was correct in his decision.

There was some argument as to whether a collection and delivery vehicle which Mr. Smart uses at Birmingham should' be taken into consideration in assessing the tonnage which he should be . allowed to use on his trunk service from Bristol to Birmingham. The Tribunal finds that, at all material -tirnei, the Birmingham vehicle was used normally for collection and delivery, and that it should not be taken into consideration.


comments powered by Disqus