Appeal Allowed in "Transfer" Case A HAULIER'S appeal which involved the
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
question of whether there was a business to take over by the appellant, was allowed by the Appeal Tribunal, at York, last Friday. The appeal was by Mr. Frank Warwick, trading as Messrs. Thomas Warwick and Son, 396, York Road, Leeds, against the refusal to grant him art A licence in respect of two vehicles in the Yorkshire Area.
When the hearing was opened at York on November 25, Mr. W. R. Hargrave (for the appellant) explained that after Mr. Thomas Warwick and his son Frank had carried on a partnership for many years, the father, who was 75 years of age, decided to retire. The son continued the business in the name of the partnership.
In consequence of the unsuitability of the two vehicles held under the
original licence, it was desired to substitute two vehicles of more modern design and capacity. Pending the hearing of the application, the appellant obtained a short-term licence, under which he hired vehicles, as those held under the original licence had broken down. When the application was heard, the Deputy Licensing Authority said that he could not grant the application, in the absence of information to guide him as to whether there was a business for the son to take over.
Submitting that there had never been any interruption in the business, Mr. Hargrave said that the firm had claimed tonnage in respect of . two vehicles (1I tons 14 cwt.) in the basic year, and the application which was the subject of the appeal was for substantially the same amount. The fact that the appellant, without advice, had surrendered the original licence, pending the granting of another, was no reason why he should be turned off the road, so far as the use of his own vehicles was concerned.
'Mr. 13. de H. Perch-a, for the respondent railways, the L.N.E.R. and L.M.S.R. companies, suggested that the application should have been to acquire two vehicles and not to " replace " the machines for which Messrs. Warwick and Son had originally had a licence.
Announcing that the appeal would be allowed, the chairman said that the Tribunal accepted the evidence given by Mr. Frank Warwick and his father that at all times there was a profitable and genuine business, and that the continuity, of the business was not broken. The Tribunal was also satisfied that in January, 1936, Mr. Frank Warwick had good reason to resort to temporary hiring.