High Cour.t. Order Against Licensing Authority ?
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE King's Bench Divisional Court, last week, granted leave to B. E. Barrett, Ltd., Luton, to apply for an order of mandamus against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, who had refused the company's request to specify London Colney, Hertford, or such other point as the Authority might think fit, . as an operating centre. The application to the Licensing -Authority. was, the first • -tif its kind to be heardin'the country. '• Applying to the -e'otrrt -ex pane, Sir • David Maxwell -Fyfe,KC., said that -.B. E. Barrett, Ltd., held an A licence in respect of seven vehicles based at Castle Street, Luton, .and operated a
• regular transport service between Luton 'and London; and collection and delivery services in those areal. The company's operating centre was in Luton, 'tivhich . was more than 25 miles from certain parts of the area over which the cornpany had Figularly operated.
An order for mandamus was sought on the ` ground that the Licensing Author0 declined -jurisdiction and had said that the request ought to have been made to the British--Transport Corn-_
• mission. • ,
An affidavit by Mr. H. E. Wilson, director and transport manager of B. E. Barrett, Ltd., stated that evidence,given b e £o r e the Licensing Authority (reported in "The Commercial Motor" on:October. 1) was to the effect that the point .which it was suggested should be treated as the ,operating centre was, in fact; in the centre of Barrens' work, and that no authorized vehicle would be, nor would any goods be, carried more than 25 miles from such point.
The Licensing Authority decided that the representations and evidence ought to be presented to the B.T.C. on an application for a permit under Section 52 of the Transport Act, 1947, as they seemed largely irrelevant to an applica
tion to the Licensing Authority to fix an operating centre under Section 58. The Authority added that it seemed clear that the general purpose of Part III of the Act was that a person who wanted to carry goods for hire or
reward beyond a 25-mile radius from his operating centre would have to apply to the Commission for a permit, and not seek to achieve his object by an application to the Licensing Authority to fix a national operating centre under Section 58 Sir David submitted that this was a misinterpretation of the Act and that the Licensing Authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case.
Leave to appeal was granted.