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 
Railways Lose 'Clarification' Appeal
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal was told on Tuesday that the West Midland Licensing . Authority hoped someone would appeal against his decision to get the issue clarified ". This was stated by Mr. G. Mercer, representing the appellants,,British Railways. The respondents, Norris and Sons, of Hartshill, Stoke-onTrent,. Were represented by Mr. N. Carlesi. The case concerned a renewal with modification application by Norris and Sons, said Mr. Mercer. They had wished to add two additional customers to their normal user' and to augment the fleet by two vehicles of 13?, tons unladen weight.. Although the back-loaded revenue' greatly exceeded originated revenue, Mr. Mercer continued: work for Shelton Iron. and Steel Ltd. and for Lloyds (Burton) Ltd. (the two new customers) was increasing, to the possible detriment of British Railways. Mr: Carless confirmed that the L.A. had found himself in considerable difficulty. He thought the Tribunal might not be able to enunciate a general principle on the basis of this "case on its own ". Traffic for the principal customer. Bonnyhridge Silica and Fireclay Co. Ltd._ was from Scotland. The respondents, in fact, had a base in Scotland and operated two vehicles there and two at Hartshill.
,British Railways would he content if the Shelton traffic were excluded from the normal user.. said Mr. Mercer.
The Tribunal President, Mr. G. D. Squibb, commented that an increase in Shelton traffic from i1,300 to 0,000 was some evidence of need. The apneal would he dismissed, he said, and reasons would. be given in writing.
AT the same Tribunal sitting an appeal by Charles Branson, of Lighthorne, Warwicks, against a decision ofthe West Midlands L.A. was dismissed. Despite a strong appeal by Mr. W. A. L. Allardice for costs for the respondents, Thornton and Hughes, no order on costs was made.
Mr. Branson, who conducted his own case, told the Tribunal that several relevant points had not been out to the L.A. He thought the respondents had underestimated their operating costs. for refuse-removing vehicle,. working at R.A.F., Gaydon. Mr. Allardice said that the respondents disputed Mr. Branson's figures; and contended that there-had been every opportunity to raise matters in dispute at two previous hearings in the lower court. He quoted a Tribunal ruling that it was in the public interest that the lowest tender should succeed, provided it was not so low as to be uneconomic_