AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

• • • But Arnold Contract A to

4th August 1961, Page 25
4th August 1961
Page 25
Page 25, 4th August 1961 — • • • But Arnold Contract A to
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?

Decision Upheld

TURNING to the Arnold Transport L (Rochester), Ltd., appeal, the president said that, on the face of it, their proposal to carry Gyproc Products' goods to southern England and South Wales, as they were already doing, and to bring back return loads on a scheduled , basis, giving a regularity of service and linking up with A-licensed carriers from those districts, seemed sensible and economic, with advantage to Arnold Transport, Gyproc, and other traders who would benefit by a regular scheduled service.

His Lordship considered that the Licensing Authority was not entitled to refuse Arnold's application as be did because he (the L.A.) thought the existing contract for seven years—which did not expire until June, I965—was more in the interests of Gyproc than the proposed new arrangement.

The Best Judges Gyproc had supported the application and must be accepted as the best judges of their own interests—both contracting parties were free and friendly and were entitled to look after themselves.

He agreed with the Tribunal that this was irrelevant. In any case, advantages would accrue to both parties, for there was a basis of economy which, while not perhaps producing a reduction in rates, might well prevent increases or reduce their extent.

It might be that the Licensing Authority had adopted this course, thinking it was an acceptable ground, not covered by adverse authority, for refusing the licence.

The Tribunal's hand was perhaps felt to be pressing too hardly upon the Licensing Authority. "I think our two decisions will, in future, tend to lighten the pressure and give recognition to the scope which the statutory power of 'full discretion' established."

Some Abstraction

Whilst the objectors in the Arnold case did not call any evidence, it appeared probable, by inference, that the scheme envisaged would mean some abstraction of traffic from the railways or other public carriers—a matter for secondary consideration.

The Tribunal's view of the case—that

there was no evidence that any other haulier could do the work and that evidence to this effect had always been treated as justifying the grant of a licence—was an illustration of the rigidity complained of by the appellants in both cases.

Past decisions may well have fitted the cases the Tribunal decided, but here the existing contract A licence was fulfilling all Gyproc's needs and the L.A. and the Tribunal, in these circumstances, were clearly not bound to grant an A licence on the basis that Gyproc's traffic would not otherwise be carried.

Whilst the Tribunal had held that an A licence shotild be granted, they had sent the application back for the Licensing Authority to assess the number of vehicles to be allowed. "He might, before doing so," they had said, "think it desirable to require the appellants to provide him with the latest possible particulars of the amount of work being performed under the contract A licence."

We suggest for his consideration." said Lord Sellers, "he should also require further information about the trunking system that the appellants were experimenting with, not only with their own vehicles, but by other South Wales hauliers as return loads.

"That still left some scope in the Licensing Authority to limit the quantum so that it would do as little damage as possible to those already established, to whom consideration should be given."

His Lordship concluded, "I feel some little doubt about it, but I am not prepared to interfere in this case with what the Tribunal has ordered, and I therefore dismiss the appeal."

Bizarre Evidence of Merchandts. e -Witnesses T ORD JUSTICE DEVLIN, in his -I-dseparate judgments in the cases, commented that whilst it was desirable for the Tribunal to make general principles for the uniform treatment of such cases, the Tribunal should not make rules which prevented or excused them, or the Licensing Authority, from examining each case on its merits. "The Tribunal must not pursue consistency at the expense of merit."

There was something bizarre about the evidence given by witnesses in the Merchandise Transport case regarding the proposed user of the vehicles. "It is as though a man explained that his right hand was willing to give up work, but fortunately his left hand was willing to take over.

Lord Justice Danckwerts, who concurred, said that there was a danger that the discretion of the Tribunal may not be applied in unfettered and proper meaning, having regard to the merits of a particular case and having regard to the principles which are regarded as being incorporated in the provisions of the Act.

He felt that the Tribunal had erred in the Merchandise case, in not taking into consideration relevant matters. The Licensing Authority's conclusion was "more realistic."

Tags

Organisations: Licensing Authority
Locations: L.A.

comments powered by Disqus