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
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 
No Ruling on Maintenance Vehicles
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN Tuffnell's, Ltd., Woodburn Road, Sheffield, appealed to the Transport Tribunal in London on 'Tuesday against the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority's grant of an additional two, instead of three, vehicles on their A licence, theBritish Transport Commission also appealed, contending that no vehicles should have been granted. Both appeals were dismissed.
Mr. A. Goff, for Tuffnell's, said that the company, who mainly carried parcels on scheduled routes, had experienced an increase in business since 1955.
The three extra vehicles they wanted on A licence were formerly on contract-A licence, carrying tobacco for Gallahers, who were opening a new depot in Sheffield. However, Gallahers had said that they would rely on Tuffnell's for any hiring work they had in future, as Tuffnell's had experience of carrying tobacco.
Mr. J. Booth, for the Commission, said that Tuffnell's had never proved. need for certain new services that they had undertaken, and they had not satisfied the Tribunal that the general industrial activity in their area, or that the activity of any single customer, had increased.
He also submitted that no increase in the fleet could be allowed to facilitate maintenance.
Giving the Tribunal's decision, Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said they did not think it desirable in this or any other case to give specific judgment for vehicle.,s held to be required to facilitate maintenance. They were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that Tuffnell's customers would be better served if there were more vehicles.
Their ground for confirming the grant of two vehicles was that the traffic was already being carried, but could not be carried in conformity with the requirements of the Act unless sufficient vehicles were available for maintenance.