C-Licence Conditions Not Contravened In Hall Case, Rule Lords
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Lords of Appeal have given t judgment in favour of Hall and Ham River Ltd. in the "who carries what " vehicle licensing case. In December, 1963. a C-licensed lorry owned by Hall and Ham River. sand and gravel operators, was stopped by a traffic examiner when it was loaded with building-site spoil.
The firm was prosecuted at Feltham for breach of the licence, accused of carrying for hire or reward. The case was dismissed by the magistrates, and later by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. (See The Commercial Motor, December 4. 1964.) The appeal against the decision, to the House of Lords, has now also been dismissed with costs.
The building spoil had been collected from a site occupied by Yeomans Ltd. under a contract between the firms to remove the spoil at 8s. 6d. a cubic yard.
The rubbish was used to fill in a Ham River excavation in order to comply with a condition of planning permission that the excavation should be reinstated.
Hall and Ham River Ltd. contended that the lorry was carrying the load in the course of the firm's business and was not acting for hire or reward. This view was upheld by Lord Dilhorne and the four Appeal Lords.
For the appellants, Sir John Hobson, QC, had submitted that the carriage for hire or reward, except under a carrier's licence, was an offence. He quoted a previous similar case (Corbett and Miller v. Barham) decided in 1954, when it was held that the firm in question had been acting for hire and reward. Lord Dilhorne and the Appeal Lords decided that this case must now be regarded as having been wrongly decided.