No Comment . from the Tribunal,
Page 72
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Sanderson Appeal in Retrospect
THE . Transport -Tribunal, hearing I the • recent appeal by Arthur Sanderson (Great Broughton), Ltd., refused to be . drawn into the sore argument of whether. or _not an operator is entitled to use extendible trailers on a licence which 'authorizes • them to carry steel.;
They were hearing ,Sanderson-s appeal against the deletion of. two articulated vehicles 'from an' Alicence and the respecification " of six Others, restricting themto an overall' length-not exceeding 35 ft. The 'Northern -Licensing Authority; Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, had taken this action on the grounds of the nonfulfilment• of undertakings given to potential objectors about the operation of long-length trailers.
1 hecase: .revolved around a letter written by the L.A.'s Clerk to Sanderson's specifying six accasionS 'on' whieh 'undertakings were given, in correspondence, Three of these undertaking related to a previous licencerand the. Tribunal, acting under the authority of section 178(0 of the 1960 Act, ruled . that those undertakings (if indeed they were undertakings), which the AuthoritY said he proposed to take into account., were irrelevant.
That left only three alleged undertakings that the Authority should have considered in deciding whether or not to suspend the vehicles, They were contained in three letters from Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., of Consett, one of the• potential objectors. After commenting that not one of the undertakings had emanated from Sanderson's, their advocate, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, asked the Tribunal to say that there was nothing on the face of the corresoondence, or which could be inferred from it, which would indicate in any wa that Sanderson's had bound themselve in the 'future to operate normal-lengt vehicles. '
The Tribunal, after some theoretict arguing with Mr. Wardlaw, accepted th appellant's submission arid set aside th Authority's decision.
Several things emerged clearly from th case. First, -the Tribunal decided t stick rigidly to their directions in th Dent's Transport (Spennymoor); Ltd appeal, wherein they said that th Authority (it was Mr. Hanlon again) ha • made a mistake in taking into accour convictions or prohibitions which did nc relate to the licence in question.
Secondly, the Tribunal did not undei stand the Authority's action in deletin the six remaining vehicles from the licenc and " respecifying " them on the sam licence with a restriction as to lengt1 " It it not clear from where in the Ac the Authoiity derived that power," the commented, Unfortunately, the Tribunal declined al invitation by Mr. Wardlaw to commer on the Trombone trailer aspect of th
case. They remained silent when h pointed out that Mr. Hanlon insisted 01 a special declaration being made if vehicle was ever to be used for long length loads. To Mr. Wardlaw's submit sion that if an applicant declared hi intention to carry steel and had trailer on his licence unspecified as to type, 11 was fully within the scope of th authority in operating extendible trailer, Sir Hubert Hull, the president said " That is not what the inquiry was about,'
Perhaps the new president, whoever h may be, will be a little more forthcomin; about the matter.