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 
Undertakings Should Be Noted on Licences
Page 66
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOW long does a verbal undertaking" given during a public hearing by an applicant in order to appease objectors, secure the withdrawal of their objections and thus obtain a grant—remain in being? According to a recent ruling of Mr. D. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, such an undertaking should only last during the currency of an existing licence, Mr. Muir said this during the hearing of an application by H. R. Richmond Ltd., of Epsom, who were seeking the variation of the conditions attached to a road service licence that the company held authorizing various excursions and tours, the variation being to—among other things—extend the duration of certain tours granted two years ago.
During the course of the hearing at which the licence was granted, Mr. R. H. Richmond, managing director of the company, gave an undertaking that he would not subsequently apply for tours of longer duration.
It was this undertaking — which, apparently, Mr. Richmond had forgotten all about when he submitted his recent application to extend his tours—that caused Mr. Muir to stop the hearing of the case and advise the applicants to re-apply in four months' time when the licence was due for renewal.
When he was reminded of the undertaking by Mr. F. S. Marshall, crossexamining on behalf of Wallace Arnold, who were objecting, Mr. Richmond said that he thought his undertaking had been given in connection with another application that he had before the Commissioners at that time which concerned tours lasting a week or longer. He was seeking only four-day tours.
Transcript Purchased?
Whether Mr. Richmond had purchased a transcript of the proceedings of two years ago is not clear. Obviously a transcript would have cleared up any doubts that Mr. Richmond had about the undertaking he had given, but the case brings the whole question of undertakings into the limelight once again.
This matter of undertakings is one that comes up in licensing courts with a great deal of regularity, True, Licensing Authorities (or chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners, as they become when they adjudicate at• passenger sittings) generally make a note on the licence file of any undertaking that is given in respect of a grant. But, two years later, such brief notes may not be sufficient to indicate exactly what was said or intended as an undertaking-and transcripts are not • supplied automatically to L.A.s or Traffic Commissioners.
Surely doubts could be obviated if any undertakings made by an applicant were recorded on the actual licences concerned. This would also prevent embarrassment in the case of the sale of a haulage or p.s.v. business.