AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

S.E. Low-loader Appeal Succeeds

27th March 1964, Page 28
27th March 1964
Page 28
Page 28, 27th March 1964 — S.E. Low-loader Appeal Succeeds
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 Transport Tribunal, sitting in London this week, allowed an appeal by Docks Haulage Co. Ltd., of Portsmouth against a low-loader B-licence grant by the South Eastern deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. C. Shepherd, to C. S. Taylor and Son of Portsmouth.

Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the appellant company (which was originally objecting to the application before the Authority) said there were matters that should have been mentioned in evidence to establish a case, but which were not.

There was, he said, no evidence that anyone had sought and not got a 10-ton low-loader; no evidence that anyone had been quoted or charged an unreasonable rate; no evidence that anyone had had difficulty or had been let down by any other operator in the area. Finally, there was no evidence that anyone on any specific occasion had approached the objectors without success.

Although Taylor had been established as an operator for many ye;rs, the company had never been a heavy haulage, low-loader operator, and to that extent was a newcomer.

An example of the respondent's inexperience in low-loading work, Mr. Yorke continued, was the fact that whereas a customer witness had conconsidered the charge for a job passed on to Hill and Sons (Botley and Denmeaci) to be grossly excessive, Mr. Taylor did not appear to think this was so.

The only evidence of value in the case concerned local work, Mr. Yorke suggested, and to have granted a licence with a 30-mile radius was "ridiculous".

For the respondent, Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin submitted that the appeal became very near to being frivolous. "One rarely sees a decision of a Licensing Authority which is so eminently sensible and so full of common sense ", he added. The deputy Licensing Authority was trying to adjust the balance between the requirements of the public generally—the requirements of those requiring facilities and the requirements of those supplying transport.

The applicant company (Taylor) needed a low-loader in the course of its own business as hirers of plant, continued Mr. Jackson-Lipkin; the application had been an attempt to carry out work in a more suitable vehicle than before.

Giving judgment, the president, Mr.

• G. D. Squibb, said the Tribunal had come to a directly opposite conclusion than the deputy Licensing Authority about the evidence. That being so, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to go into the evidence that had been adduced by the objectors.

The Tribunal granted a stay of 21 days to enable Taylor to make alternative arrangements for its customers.


comments powered by Disqus