Film Transport Appeal Allowed
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LAST week, the Appeal Tribunal allowed, with costs, the appeal of Mr. C. J. Hazell, of. Southampton, against the refusal of the South Eastern Licensing Authority to grant him a licence. The Southern Counties Road Transport Co., Ltd., was the respondent.
On behalf of the Southern Counties concern, Mr. N. R. Fox Andrews said that when the Hampshire Transport Co., of which Mr. Hazell was secretary, went into• liquidation in 1932 he improperly obtained possession of two vehicles which the company used for the transport of films from London to the Southampton district.
Later, the appellant sought, and was granted, a licence for claimed tonnage in the basic year. Due to his possession of the lorries, he retained the business of the Hampshire Transport concern, despite the fact that the respondent, the Southern Counties Transport Co., Ltd., was entitled to reap benefit from the business, which it had purchased from the liquidators.
Mr. Fox Andrews pointed out that in February, 1936, at Winchester Assizes, judgment had been given against Mr. Hazell on the question of his right to retain the two lorries. Both Mr. Hazell and the Southern Counties Transport concern carry on a similar business in substantially the same area, said Mr. Fox Andrews, and he submitted that his client was well equipped to maintain these particular services.
On behalf of the' appellant, Mr. Norman Letts submitted that his client's conduct during the basic year should not have been considered by the Licensing Authority. Moreover, Mr. Hazell had satisfied the requirements laid down by the Tribunal in the Bouts-Tillotson appeal as to the use of authorized vehicles during the currency of the licence.
Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., announced that the reasons for the Tribunal's decision would be made known later.