AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Witness Censured for Secrecy

30th November 1956
Page 43
Page 43, 30th November 1956 — Witness Censured for Secrecy
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?

THE North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority censured the refusal of a customer-witness to disclose details of holding and subsidiary companies last week. Johnson, Wild and Co., Ltd., Newton-le-Willows, sought an A licence for three vehicles, including two articulated outfits.

Mr. E. A. Whitehead, fa? the applicants, said that they had two vehicles on A licence, three on special A. three on B and 11 on contract A. If the application were granted, a B licence for two articulated vehicles would be surrendered, also one of five contkact A-licence vehicles held for Stoves, Ltd., Rainhill, would be given up.

There were 12 objectors—British Road Services, the railways, and 10 Warrington hauliers, including the Premier Transport Co., Clarkson Transport Services, Stockton Heath Transport and the Darbyshire Transport Co.

A representative of Stoves, Ltd., said that the contract-A vehicles were articulated outfits for carrying domestic cookers to Gas Boards throughout the country.The traffic was special, as cookers 'could not be stacked on top of each other, and the applicants were the only operators who had met the needs of the company by providing the vehicles.

Stoves, Ltd., had associated companies in London, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne and Swansea, and return loads would be available if the vehicles were given an A licence. Asked by Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the British Transport Commission, for information about the associated concerns, witness replied that it was not his company's policy to give such details to the objectors, but the Authority could have it if he wished. • Mr. Bea mes pointed out that the Authority's predecessor had, before 1939, taken the view that he could quite properly receive information and withhold it from the objectors, but in the Barton appeal the Appeal Tribunal stated that the facts must be made available to the objectors.

Mr. Whitehead submitted that there had been a change in the law since then. The dominating factor now was the well-being of those requiring trans port. Previously only the operators' welfare had been considered.

The Authority said that secrecy was entirely unnecessary and was bound to have an effect on his mind. if the objectors could not have the information it must remain undisclosed.

When the applicants had presented their case, Mr. Beames submitted that although there might be a prima facie case, the evidence was nebulous. This placed the objectors in a difficulty, for they were faced with vague allegations of unsatisfactory transport which should be investigated. He asked for an adjournment, being supported by Mr. G. Lytton for the haulier objectors.

The Authority said that the application would be re-listed to enable the applicants to produce proof of unsatisfactory facilities by the objectors.


comments powered by Disqus