1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Cumberland Haulier's Appeal Dismissed
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
plECAUSE the only lorry of Mr. Li Duncan Hill, of Crosby, near Maryport, Cumberland, was heavily employed, he appealed to the Transport Tribunal in London last week against a decision of the Northern Licensing Authority not to allow him a licence for a further vehicle. The respondents were British Railways and the Transport Holding Company. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the appellant, asked the Tribunal to send the matter back for a further hearing before the L.A. He said that Hill had operated one lorry for 10 years, formerly working mainly for British Road Services and clearing houses. But now he was carrying detergents and machinery, chiefly to London, for Marchon Products Ltd., of Whitehaven.
"He is no longer relying on the Crumbs which fall from the rich Man's table; he has got his own business ", said Mr. Wardlaw.
On return journeys from London, Hill carried material for Thomas Mandle Ltd., builders' merchants, of Maryport, and he suffered great inconvenience when his only vehicle was under repair. Marchon Products and Mandles had supported his application.
Mr. R. H. Yorke, for the respondents, said: " It is not a case of this man being doomed for ever to have only one vehicle. It is a question of whether anybody in that area wanted more work done."
The Tribunal president, Mr, G. D. Squibb, said it was not possible to conclude from the original evidence that any of Hill's customers were not having their haulage demands satisfied. Hill had not shown that he had tried to get temporary authorization while his vehicle was under repair.
"It would be dreadful if the licensing system were to be operated in such a way that a man entering into the haulage business with one vehicle was to be condemned for the rest of his working life to be a one-vehicle operator ", said Mr. Squibb.
"A one-vehicle man is not in any better position than anybody else to get an increase in his fleet. He has got to prove it with proper evidence and the appellant did not prove it in this case."
Mr. Squibb added that this decision would not prejudice Hill's chances of success on any later application.