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 
Contract Judgment late in the day
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TNECONOMIC contract carrying "‘.1 rates were the main bone of contention in last month's important Fast Freights (Road Haulage) Ltd. appeal against the refusal of the Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority to grant an A licence in respect of four vehicles with a normal user of "mainly goods for Campbell Soups Ltd. from King's Lynn to the London area" etc. The proposal was to surrender two Contract A licences with Campbell Soups if the application succeeded.
This case has caused a certain amount of interest, I gather, in the Eastern Area. The result could be regarded as a step in the right direction to close the "back door" into the industry proper, which was opened in 1961 as a result of the Arnold appeals.
The deputy Licensing Authority was faced with a conflict of evidence as to how Fast Freights obtained the traffic which was originally carried by British Road Services. He came to the conclusion that Campbell Soups had been perfectly satisfied with B.R.S. until Fast Freights approached them and offered a cheaper rate.
If that is a correct assumption on the part of the Authority, then it is significant that one of the grounds on which the application was made was said to be because the contract work for Campbell Soups was uneconomic.
It had been stated in evidence that Campbell Soups were not satisfied with the service they had received from 11.R.S. in the past, but the Tribunal—after reviewing the evidence—was not satisfied That this was the case. "We should be unwilling to force Campbell Soups Ltd. to rely upon the services of a haulier who had failed to provide them with a satisfactory service in the past", the Tribunal quite rightly ruled.
Concluding its judgment, the Tribunal said that. having come to the conclusion that if the contracts between Fast Freights and Campbell Soups were not renewed there would be sufficient suitable licensed haulage available, they agreed with the deputy Authority's decision to refuse the applicat
As I said earlier, this judgment is looked upon, in some circles, as an attempt by the Tribunal to stop the backdoors rush into the industry proper. A little late in the day, I would venture to suggest.