AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Must Objectors' Case be Disproved?

28th September 1956
Page 71
Page 71, 28th September 1956 — Must Objectors' Case be Disproved?
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, at an

adjourned sitting in London on Tuesday, heard an appeal by May's Motors (Transport), Ltd., Elstead, near Godalming, against the South Eastern Licensing Authority's refusal of their application for an A licence for a vehicle nist exceeding 3 tons.

Mr. R. Beddington, for May's, said that the concern were established hauliers and held every kind of licence except the ordinary A. The Authority found that an increase in business was established as a result of expansion in customers' business, but held that May's could not prove that customers had suffered inconvenience without also showing that the objectors had not made out their case.

Mr. Beddington submitted that in that respect the Authority had inisdirected himself. Evidence had been given that May's could not always supply vehicles to customers when required. This was why the application had been made.

An applicant had to prove that he needed more transport to meet the reasonable requirements of his established customers, and that this was what May's had done.

Mr., J. R. Samuel-Gibbon, for the British Transport Commission, the respondents, submitted that if the application were granted, the effect would be to license a surplus vehicle. Figures produced by May's were stale, inaccurate and misleading."


comments powered by Disqus