'UNWARRANTED CRITICISM'
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" THE aspersions cast upon the applicants . by the Licensing Authority were without foundation and it is regrettable that the LA permitted himself to make such criticism without regard to the law or the facts." This was said by Mr. R. Yorke on behalf of Harrison's Limeworks Ltd., when advising the Transport Tribunal in London last week that his client would serve a notice of discontinuance in regard to the appeal before them.
The appeal was against the Northern LA's refusal to grant, in November last year, two rigid vehicles with pressurized tanks and three artics on B licence to Harrisons to carry concrete for named customers within 100 miles of Penrith.
At the four-day hearing the LA was told that Harrison's and Etlenhall Concrete Products Ltd. had formed a partnership, alenhall Readymixed Concrete. Harrison's C-licensed vehicles had been used by the new company to carry concrete for the partners.
The LA's office had advised Harrison's that a B licence was required for this work. Five objectors at the hearing told the LA, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, that they had tankers with spare capacity which could handle this traffic.
When giving his decision, the LA had strongly criticized Harrison's because his clerk had written to the applicant on July 10, 1964, informing it that a B licence was obligatory and that it had continued to run on a C licence for the following two years.
Mr. Yorke told the Tribunal: "Having regard to the terms of Section 164 of the Act, the decision of the Divisional Court in Wurzel v. Atkinson, of the House of Lords in Hammond v. Hall and Ham River and the provision of the Partnership Act, work which the applicants wish to do can lawfully be done under a C licence."
The Tribunal reserved judgement on costs until the discontinuation notice had been served.