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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166 
Clean Sweep
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LIKE a small boat bobbing cheerfully among the big ships in a harbour, the Tribunal with the duty of hearing appeals against decisions of the licensing authorities continues to keep afloat among the various major pieces of legislation affecting the transport industry. Originally known as the Appeal Tribunal, it merged its identity just 10 years ago with that of the Transport Tribunal, whose chief function previously had been to fix rates and fares for the railways and for London Transport.
As a consequence of the new Transport Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over charges has become almost vestigial. The newly constituted body is to have two divisions, one concerned with London fares and miscellaneous charges and the other with road haulage appeals. For the latter purpose, the president will sit with two members, one of whom is to have experience in transport, not necessarily road transport. The president may also call on the services of members of a special panel, presumably persons of some acquaintance with the subject, who are to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport.
THESE considerable changes in the form and functions of the Tribunal have come about at the same time as the retirement of the president, Sir Hubert Hull, the appointment of his successor, Mr. G. D. Squibb, and the passage through Parliament of other relevant legislation, particularly the confirmation in the new Transport Act of the superior power of the Court of Appeal. It is perhaps symbolic that, in the last published decision for which he can be held responsible, the dismissal of the appeal by H.M.W. Tranport, Ltd., Sir Hubert has had to dip his flag reluctantly, and after a delay of six months, to the principle laid down by the higher court in the Merchandise Transport case.
Operators, it may be felt, are not paying sufficient attention to the fact that, partly by coincidence and partly by decision, practically the whole of the appeal machinery is now being recast. Their difficulty, however, is to estimate what the changes mean and what the ultimate effect will be. As has happened previously, the reconstitution is a minor feature of a wholesale reorganization of the country's transport, and the real significance may become clear only from experience.
IN all probability, nobody realized what a rod in pickle was being prepared for hauliers by Section 73 of the Transport Act, 1947, which provided for the ultimate transfer to the Transport Tribunal of the functions of the Appeal Tribunal set up under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. The 1947 Act contained too many other things of importance to operators, and there were other reasons why they were less interested at the time in what happened to their appeals. The licensing system had been virtually suspended during the war, and even in 1947 was still only in the process of reanimation,
The appointment of one Tribunal instead of two may have seemed a logical by-product of the principle of integration that infested all the legislation on transport brought in by the Labour Government. The augmented Tribunal, as the final arbiter on both rates and licensing, would have the whole of transport as its field, while the British Transport Commission, through the permit system, B32 would have almost absolute control over the carriage 4 all goods for hire or reward beyond a distance of some miles.
The need to solicit permits from the nationalized con petitors, who were themselves independent of the licensir system, may have helped to make hauliers pay less regal to changes in the appeals machinery. In retrospect, it mi seem surprising that they apparently made no comment all when the date for the dissolution of the Appeal Tribun was fixed as August 15, 1951, by a statutory instrume: passed in that year. What has to be remembered is thE at that date, a Labour Government was still in powc although with a reduced majority, and that, although the were grounds for expecting a Conservative Governme after the next general election, this was not a certaint neither was it certain that the Conservatives would car out their promise of denationalization.
Hauliers were preoccupied with matters more fund mental than the constitution of the body most fit to he appeals, and for several years to come they were main concerned with the Transport Act, 1953, with its prolongi prologue and epilogue. The lack of interest in appeals co tinned. It may be significant that, in the first year that 1: Transport Tribunal fully took over its inheritance, name the 12 months up to the end of September, 1953, ti number of appeals, at 56, was the lowest that has bei recorded since the war.
It was not until,, as the result of one or two notorio decisions, the term "normal user" became widely knoN outside the traffic courts, that operators began to reali the presence of a new dispensation. Few of them won now refuse to admit the profound effect, either of t change in the constitution of the Tribunal, or of the m personalities that it introduced, or of both.
THERE can be no blame for the failure to assess the siti tion earlier. The merging of the two Tribunals, at a tir when compulsory mergers were the fashion and the impo ance of the licensing system appeared to be diminishit naturally attracted little attention. Subsequently, followi the political changes, the desirability or otherwise reverting to the earlier arrangement was not even r forward for consideration. Even when the full significar of what had happened began to be appreciated, it seem more than likely that there could be reasons apart fr( the appeal machinery for the difficulties that were arisim
Similarly, the new reorganization of the Transpi Tribunal stems naturally from the other provisions ofi Transport Act, 1962, and there has been no point of en for the possible objections of operators. The idea that least some members of the Tribunal should have soi special knowledge of transport may well have been I result of good advice, and no doubt the interests concerr will do what they can to put forward the names of suita persons.
The situation could even be improving, particularly a result of the double triumph in the Merchandise Transp case, which not only established the right of appeal abc the Tribunal but also won the point at issue. If Government's policy is pursued on the lines laid dm there should be nothing to fear. The only danger lies a change of policy that would upset the Tribunal's delic balance as a regulator, as may have happened after 19