AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three Scottish Appeals Decided

31st July 1936, Page 26
31st July 1936
Page 26
Page 26, 31st July 1936 — Three Scottish Appeals Decided
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

THREE sets of appeals against de1 cisions of the Southern Scotland Licensing Authority were heard by the Appeal Tribunal, in Edinburgh, last week. Sheriff A. C. Black, K.C., took the chair, in place of Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C.

The L.M.S. Railway Co, appealed against the granting of a B licence to Mr. Hugh W. Anton, Palmerlea, Dundonald, Ayrshire, to carry livestock within a limited area. It was urged that no evidence had been led to show' that the haulage work which applicant proposed to undertake could not be done by existing operators.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mr. William Kerr, Kilwinning, Ayrshire, and the L.M.S. Railway Co. appealed against the variation of an A licence granted to Mr. Stephen Brown, Flowerbank, Crosshouse, Ayrshire.

The authorization of an additional vehicle under an A licence was said not to be justified, as the applicant had stated that only one person was ready and willing to employ him. It was• further urged that Mr. Brown mulct receive a dual grant by obtainini'an A contract licence. .

The appeals were sustained. The Order is to lie in the Tribunal's office for 14 days to enable Mr. Brown to obtain a contract from the firm for whom he desired specially to carry and to apply for a contract licence.

Messrs. William Aitken and Sons, Stockbridge, Linlithgowshire, appealed against the refusal to vary their licence by adding a 5-ton vehicle.. .to two vehicles of 7 tons and 4 tons respectively, which were recently authorized as additions to the firm's fleet.

The appellants• claimed that the extra machine was necessary if they were to cope with their business as hauliers and withdraw other vehicles for occasional rest and repair.

The L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies objected on the ground that they, with other operators. of Toad transport, provided excessive facilities.

The appeal was dismissed, with £15 15s. costs to the railways.


comments powered by Disqus