Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

L.N.E R. Not Allowed to Amend Appeal A FTER a railway

28th January 1938
Page 4
Page 4, 28th January 1938 — L.N.E R. Not Allowed to Amend Appeal A FTER a railway
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?

request to amend an appeal had been resisted for the respondent rbad operators, at York, last week, the Appeal Tribunal formally allowed the appeal as lodged, and ordered a rehearing.

The appeal by the L.N.E. Railway Co. referred to a decision by the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to grant an A licence for two vehicles in possession and one to be acquired, to Messrs. Sidney Hall and George Robert Carlisle, 81, Charlotte Street, Hull.

Mr. E. P. Merritt, for the appellant, said that the appeal as lodged was against that part of the decision relating to the vehicle to be acquired, but he now asked permission to amend it

so as to extend it to all three vehicles. Submitting that the applicants should really have been granted a B licence, Mr. Merritt said that on the evidence at the hearing of the application, it was clear the vehicles would be used in connection with a builders' merchant's business which was carried on by Mr. Sidney Hall.

After Mr. S. E. Pitts, solicitor to the Yorkshire Area of Associated Road Operators, who appeared for the respondents, had stated that he could not agree to the amendment, it was agreed that the appeal should be formally allowed by consent, subject to a further inquiry by the Yorkshire Licensing Authority.

comments powered by Disqus