Unspecified Objections Disqualify Appeal
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE C. P. Marshall (Transport), Ltd., had not specified their objections, the Transport Tribunal last week decided that they could not hear their appeal against a grant by the East Midlands Deputy Licensing Authority to the North Lines Haulage Co., Ltd. The Authority had allowed North Lines to use a vehicle when a licensed outfit wa'S withdrawn for maintenance.
Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said that when North Lincs applied in July last year for a B licence, objections were lodged by the railways and Marshall. The Commission's form of objection followed regular prescription but MarSall's did not.
Mr. Hull continued to say that whereas Mr. J. Fox-Andrews, for Marshall, had relied upon two previous decisions by the Tribunal that objectors had no right of appeal when their objections failed after their notices of objection were not in the prescribed form, thesedecisions should not be construed to mean that any departure from the normal procedure was fatal.
, In this case, Marshall had failed to specify any ground of objection and therefore the Tribunal reluctantly could not hear their appeal.
£17,057 DAMAGES AGAINST STANDERWICK
DAMAGES totalling £17,057 were awarded by Mr. Justice Austin Jones to a widow and a widower last week against W. C. Standerwick, Ltd. The case arose out of an accident in which one of the company's coaches was involved.
The widow received £12,000 for her injuries and £3,807 for the death of her husband, whilst the other recipient was awarded £500 for his injuries and £750 for the death of his wife.