Overwhelming evidence, says appeal counsel
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DOCUMENTS presented by Caudle Ltd. in support of an application for two vehicles on A licence were riddled with errors. This was the contention of Mr. David Keene who represented the respondent, BRS, before the Transport Tribunal last week.
Caudle appealed against the decision of the Metropolitan deputy LA to refuse its application. Mr. Keene submitted there was no real evidence of need, and what need there was had been created because Caudle had accepted work with which it could not cope.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb QC, commented that the respondents and appellant appeared to agree that a grant could not be made purely on a return load basis. At the first sitting of the tribunal (COMMERCIAL MOTOR January 20), Mr. Jackson-Lipkin, for Caudle Ltd., had said that the appellant's expansion of traffic exLondon had resulted from the recommendations of existing customers to others.
In his closing submission, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin pointed out that there were only two objectors at the original hearing, BRS and British Railways. Not one Birmingham haulier had objected to the application which was published in Applications and Decisions for the Metropolitan area. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin told the Tribunal "Through the services of COMMERCIAL MOTOR these applications are advertised."
Mr. Jackson-Lipkin submitted that there was sufficient evidence for a grant of two vehicles and overwhelming evidence for one. The Tribunal reserved their decision.