First Post-war Appeals One Fails
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE first case under' the reconstituted I Appeal Trib-anal was heard Iasi week and brought out sOme interesting principles Decisionwas reserved by the Tribunal, the three members of which are now Mr. Gleeson E. Robinson, C.8, M.C.. LL.D, (chairman), Mr. E. S. Shrapnell-Smith, C.B.E., and Sir Archibald McKinstry, D.Sc., • 111.1.Mech.E.. M.LE.E.
Appellant was the Vectis Shipping Co., Ltd (against the refusal by the South-Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority of La application for a B licence for two vehicles of five tons each) and the respondents were the Southern Railway Co., and 10 hauliers.
The basis of the appeal, as put by Mr. Fox Andrews, was that his client— a shipping company with eight vessels sailing between Newport, Isle of Wight, and the mainland—could perhaps obtain hired transport, but not suitable hired transport. There were special circumstances, in that vessels had to sail with the tides, of which there were two a day. Hired transport had often failed tc operate at the correct times and valuable cargoes had been wasted and customers displeased. With its own vehicles, the company could operate more efficiently.
Defence Permits Refused
Mr. Fox Andrews said that the fact that the company, had -been refused defence permits (because of exigencies of war and not as to merit) seemed to have been taken into account in making the decision. But for the war, a normal and similar application for a B licence would have been made.
His client did niit wish to enter into haulage for profit and was prepared' to accept a condition that it should transport only goods to be carried on its own ships. The Deputy Licensing Authority had found difficulty in imposing such a condition, either because of the wording or to the meaning within the Act., but he did not see why there should be difficulty.
The Deputy Licensing Authority had said the problem was essentially finan cial. but this was not Acr. •
In the course Of a resiudie of the evidence _by Mr.'. rizk :Andrews, the chairman of the Tribunal questioned whether the cross-examination of an objector, who was a haulier, was a
desirable practice.: Counsel suggested that if.it showed the objection not. to be , a valid 011C it was justified. The chairman said its • was a' matter for consideration.
• Mr. David Karmel, for the Southern Railway C A., based his case on the primciple that there had been no virtual change in the Vectis company's business nor in the available transport facilities for many years, and that if -it had hired for so long it could continue to do so.
It would have to prove special circumstances to justify doing away with all hiring. There had, however, been no great increase in business, no rush of traffic, no unusual weather conditions, which would possibly have been special circumstances. There had never been any change in the tides.
In letters which had been submitted as evidence, said Mr. Karmel, no full account of incidents had been submitted. In only three cases were hauliers mentioned. There were only general charges of delay, and the Deputy Licensing Authority was bound to feel that he could not act on statements in such general terms.
He said that nobody, suggested that the business, or the facilities of operation, had changed in the past 30 years. No prima facie case had been made out, in his opinion, and even if it had, certain of the evidence rebutted it.
There thca took place an interesting interchange between the Tribunal and counsel on the whole question of whether special circumstances need be new circumstances. • Mr. Gleeson Robinson said:—" I cannot accept the argument that • what was good enough in my father's time, is -good enough in mine.'" Mr. Norman Letts, for nine haulier objectors, said that facilities for the company were available, and it would be reasonable to approach certain con cerns. An arrangement could surely be made.
Mr. V. R. Shepherd, for Hay's Wharf Cartage Co., Ltd., said that careful planning and business management were all that was necessary to cope with the tides.
Answering for the appellant, Mr. Fox Andrews said that it had never been his client's case that there were not adequate facilities, but that the existing ones were not suitable because of delay caused by their other commitments in the island.
The purpose was to meet the public need. There were peculiar circumstances and a public demand. The matter, however, could be tested perhaps by the use of one vehicle instead of two for the present, and it would not weaken his client's case to say that something was better than nothing.
Mr. Gleeson Robinson suggested that these ships were in the same case as deep-sea ships and there was greater urgency than if there had been no tides.
Ex-soldier's Case Fails The second case heard was one in which an ex-Serviceman had been refused continuation of an A licence for a 2-tonner which had lapsed before the war. The decision was that of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority.
He conducted his own appeal and the basis was that renewal had not been effected before the war because of illness. During the war he had served with the infantry and was wounded at Sicily, subsequently receiving a 50 per cent. disablement pension. Since then he had beea driving-a London bus, but was on sick leave at present and feared that on return he would be likely to lose his employment.
For the Southern Railway Co. it was submitted that the man was a newcomer. Everyone had sympathy, but there was no case, and no evidence of any public need.
The Tribunal refused the appeal with great sympathy and suggested the possibility of application for a B licence, although not recommending it. The chairman said there were thousands of -ex-Servicemen in similar positions and it would not help them to grant licences because they would not make a living. No costs would be made against the appellant.