AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

I AST week the Queen's Bench Divi sional Court quashed

5th November 1965
Page 39
Page 39, 5th November 1965 — I AST week the Queen's Bench Divi sional Court quashed
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Law / Crime

a conviction of Herbert Ball (Contractors) Ltd.. builders' merchants and excavation contractors, of Uphollanci. near Wigan, hi; the Liverpool stipendiary magistntte. The conviction related to 18 summonses alleging hreaches of a condition attached to the company's B licence and a fine of (10 on each of the summonses had been imposed. The condition. restricted carriage for hire or reward to opencast coal and certain overburden.

Mr. Justice Ashworth, who sat with Lord Parker (the Lord Chief Justice) and Mr. Justice Widgery said that in February and March, 1964. a vehicle belonging to the appellants carried loads of rubbish from a factory in liverpool to a till which they were filling in at Kirkby Moss. The appellants were being paid .13 I5s. 6d. a load for the rubbish and this, the magistrate had held, was in contravention of their licence.

But it was a plain inference of the case that the appellants were not merely

removing the rubbish for the sake of earning the money but also so that they could use it as an absorbent for the bottom of the pit they were filling in, said the Judge.

It was therefore impossible for him to avoid the conclusion that the material did constitute goods used by the appellants in the course of their business.

It had been contended against the appellants that such cases fell into two categories. Where waste materials were being used to fill in a hole it was clear that they were being used in the course of business. Where they were merely deposited in -the hole the same did not apply. The contention was that the case in question fell into the second category.

But Mr_ justice Ashworth concluded that the case was in the first category. Once that had been established by the carrier, he was in the safe ground of Section 164 sub-section 5;a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 and could not, be drawn out of that merely because there was an element of reward in the carrying.

Tags

People: Ashworth, Widgery, Parker
Locations: Liverpool

comments powered by Disqus