1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Right to Transfer Licences
Page 97
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RESERVED judgment on the question of the right to transfer title to licences for road-transport tonnage was given in the King's Bench Division On June 24, by Mr. Justice Humphreys.
Mr. John George Nash, of Westray, Chertsey Bridge Road, Shepperton, was entitled, as of right, to licence to run tonnage of 51, and he proposed to lend his name to Stevenson Transport, Ltd., of Sefton Road, Litherland, Liverpool, to enable that company to run the tonnage in which otherwise' he was not interested. He was not concerned in either the company or the management of its employees.. He brought against it an action for 375 under an agreement with the company, of May, 1934, by which it was, he said, to pay him the sum in consideration of his lodging claims for licences, the .2.375 to be paid within 14 days of the notification that his claims were successful. The claims were duly lodged and the notification of their success was received. A question arose of the legality of the arrangement and the case was brought to test it.
Stevenson Transport, Ltd., by its defence, contended that See-lion 21 of the goad. and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, prevented a licence . being transferred and the . agreement was illegal,' void and unenforcible, in the absence of ally effective transfer or assignment of licences to Stevenson Transport, Ltd.
Mr. Justice Humphreys found in favour of Stevenson Transport, Ltd., and said that under the Act licences could not be transferred in this way. He entered judgment for the defendant company with costs. To lend one's name as licensee to a company ts, run the tonnage was illegal and could not be carried out without an offence being committed by the defendant company
in using the plaintiff's name. The agreement, said the judge, could not he carried out by reason of a subsection of Section 2, because these motor vehicles, to be authorized vehicles, must be vehicles belonging to the holder of the licence. It was obvious, by the agreement, that these were not to he vehicles belonging to Mr. Nash at all, Or in his possession. Clause 1 was against it. Section 16 of the Act seemed to show that it was quite impossible for Mr. Nash, who was the person looked to by the Licensing Authority as their licensee, to observe the terms of the Act and be responsible in the event of any breach. It would be quite impossible for him to carry out his duties under this agreement.
Section 16 provided that the holder of a licence was to keep, in accordance with the regulations, current re
cords showing every person employed by him as a driver, the times of starting and ending work, details of each journey, weights carried, descriptions of goods, and so forth. How could Mr. Nash, who was going to have nothing whatever to do with the vehicles, possibly keep such records? This section seemed to the judge to fortify the view he formed, mainly upon the language of Section 1, that this agreement could not be enforced and necessarily involved the use on the road of vehicles by the defendant company, in respect of which it was not the licensee.
The agreement would he void in law as contemplating an actual breach of the statute, and judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant.