AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

How Does New Act Affect Appeals ?

29th May 1953, Page 35
29th May 1953
Page 35
Page 35, 29th May 1953 — How Does New Act Affect Appeals ?
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?

WHEN the Ely Transport appeal VI' again came before the Transport [Appeal] Tribunal, fast week, it was decided to adjourn the hearing sine die so that the Tribunal could consider and decide upon the relevance of the new Transport Act to the case.

As reported last week, Ely Transport, Ltd., had been refused permission by the South Wales Licensing Authority to add vehicles to their fleet upon the acquisition of the businesses of Mrs. A. F. Vincent, Mr. E. J. Williams and Mr. H. G. Cryer. .The licences of the vendors were also not renewed and appeals were lodged by these parties and the company.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the appellants, submitted that the provisions of the new Act, which eased the onus placed upon applicants for licences, were applicable to the case. He said: "Where a statute is affecting change in substantive rights, prima facie it is now deemed to be retrospective, but where the change is a change in adjective law only—procedural only —the Tribunal is bound to take it into account and apply the law as changed."

Mr. Rosser John, for the respondents, the Railway and Road Haulage Executives, submitted that the changes were En substantive law.

Mr. Samuel-Gibbon stated that when the three small hauliers entered into management agreements with the company, they did not give the effective control of their businesses to Ely Transport, Ltd, They were, therefore, entitled to the renewal of their licences. If, however, the applications had to be dealt with as new applications, the new Act would assist them. He could offer no reason why the matter should not be sent back to the Authority for consideration in the light of the new law.

The president, Mr. Hubert Hull, said that a vital question of principle had been raised and as it might affect all pending cases, the Tribunal thought that it would be wrong to proceed until it had been discussed.


comments powered by Disqus