AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Four Appeal Decisions Announced

26th June 1936, Page 79
26th June 1936
Page 79
Page 79, 26th June 1936 — Four Appeal Decisions Announced
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?

• rOURAecisions were given, on Wed

nesday, by the Appeal Tribunal, The Smart case, which failed, is reported at length on page 631. The appeal of Messrs. Moss Bros., Shute, Devon, was dismissed with £20 costs to the Southern Railway Co.

• The appeals of the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies against a grant to Collier Daniels Transport, Ltd., has been referred back to the North Western Licensing Authority for rehearing. The appeals of the four railway companies against grants to T. W. Foster and Co., Ltd., succeeded generally, and the appellants are to receive £17 7s, costs,' against which has to be set £6 12s. awarded to the Foster concern in connection with a separate issue.

Messrs. Moss applied to the Western Licensing Authority for three additional vehicles, two of which had been run without licences for some months. The firm dealt largely in the transport of eggs and poultry around Shute and to London, The Tribunal, held that evidence relating to ,goods carried or receipts obtained by the use of unauthorized vehicles should be ignored as evidence, although the persons for whom the goods were transported were customers prior to the period of illegal working. The evidence given was insufficient to justify a decision different from that reached by the Licensing Authority.

In the Collier Daniels case, the company was granted . by the North Western Licensing. Authority an extra vehicle (5i tons) under an A licence. Both the appellants and the respondent stated that further evidence could have been given before the Authority, but was withheld owing to the lateness of the hour at which the application came on for hearing_ The Tribunal comments that the difficulties (alleged on' behalf of the Collier Daniels concern) of obtaining witnesses could be minimized if instructions to advocates were given earlier by both applicants and objectors.

T. W. Foster and Co., Ltd., was granted three additional vehicles by the Metropolitan Deputy Licensing Authority. There was considerable argument concerning the admissibility of two of the grounds of appeal.

In the Tribunal's view, the appellant is entitled to raise any point relevant to the issue of whether suitable transport facilities exist and whether they arc, or would be, in excess of requirements if the Licensing Authority's decision were upheld. The appellant is also entitled to present a case based on the allegation that the Authority was wrong in exercising his discretion in favour of the respondent, it having been established either that suitable facilities existed or are, or would be, in excess of requirements.

The appeals are allowed so far as two of the vehicles are concerned. In connection with the issue of the need for a vehicle for overhaul and repair purposes, the respondent company is successful.


comments powered by Disqus