AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Gerrards Appeal Succeeds: Not Newcomer 41 2 desire to emphasize that we

29th May 1936, Page 38
29th May 1936
Page 38
Page 38, 29th May 1936 — Gerrards Appeal Succeeds: Not Newcomer 41 2 desire to emphasize that we
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?

have decided this case in the way we have because of the very exceptional circumstances connected with it," stated the Appeal Tribunal, in announcing its preliminary decision, at Preston, last, week, on the appeal of Gerrards Transport, Ltd., against the refusal of A licences by the NorthWestern Deputy Licensing Authority. The Tribunal had, it was stated. reached the conclusions upon which its decision was based.

As reported at length in our issue dated May 15, Gerrards Transport, Ltd., is a subsidiary of J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd. ; the latter concern carried, to a considerable extent, for hire or reward during the basic year. The subsidiary company was formed solely for haulage work.

The case presented to the Appeal Tribunal was that, in the special circumstances, the Licensing Authority should have had before him facts regarding J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd., and should have granted tonnage at least equivalent to that claimed by J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd.

The respondents held that the appellant should not be regarded as successor to any part of the haulage business formerly carried on by J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd., and that the company was a newcomer.

In the special circumstances, the Tribunal held that Gerrards Transport, Ltd., should not be regarded as a newcomer, hut, as successor to the former haulage business of J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd., should have been granted A licences. During the basic year J. Gerrard and Sons, Ltd., had 111 tons and 79 per cent. of the tonnage carried was for hire or reward. There had been no substantial change in the business since that date.

After analysing the evidence, the Tribunal awarded the appellant 100 tons 6 cwt. under A licences. The appeal was allowed, with 236 10s. costs.