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 
ibunal 'holds
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Iputy LA
Transport Tribunal has upheld a :ision by the Eastern deputy Licensing rity refusing to grant a variation to the held by K. and B. Ward Ltd., of d, Beds. An appeal by the company ;missed on Tuesday.
appellant had applied for a variation licence to enable the company to carry for agricultural merchants Jordan ddington Ltd., of Harrold. The main nwas Jordan and Addington's ial haulier, Rowlatt Bros., also of d, supported by W. S. Merrill, of arunston, Beds, and British Railways. of the objectors attended the appeal s E. Havers, for K. and B. Ward, d to earlier evidence and said that it Bros. had been Jordan and AddingIrincipal hauliers for many years, but hey viere satisfactory in the work they y were not always available.
m Rowlatt Bros. were unable to meet and Addington's needs they subzted the work when possible to W. S. . Miss Havers said there was no don that Rowlatt Bros. would suffer if ilication was granted.
Tribunal president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, at K. and B. Ward had made the first with regard to doirlg business with and Addington at a time when the 's fleet of five vehicles was underred.
len an application is based upon employment of the applicant fleet and sterner did not make the first move, els bound to scrutinize the application ire", said Mr. Squibb.
ppeared to the Tribunal that the needs dan and Addington for further transere minimal and the application would have been made if the appellant's fleet )t been under-employed. There was no idence to support the application.