Appeals Valid : Case to be Re-heard
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
N a written judgment issued on • Wednesday, the • Transport Tribunal ave sent back to the Scottish Licensing Luthority for re-hearing the case of lighland Haulage, Ltd. (The Commercial fotor, July 18). They have done so ecause the Licensing Authority did not flow the objectors to cross-examine or all evidence.
Highland Haulage, Ltd., applied on one 3rm (G.V.6) for the removal from their L licence of three vehicles totalling Ist under nine tons, and the addition of iree vehicles to be acquired, weighing [together about 12+ tons. The British 'ransport Commission and six hauliers bjected.
At the hearing, the Licensing Authority pheld a submission on behalf of Hightd Haulage, Ltd., that the objectors had o locus standi. He allowed the objectors' presentatives to address him, but not ) cross-examine or call evidence. He ranted the application and four of the bjecting hauliers appealed.
Highland Haulage submitted that the opellants were not entitled to appeal. hey claimed that Section 15 (1) (b) of te 1933 Act limited the right of an bjector to appeal to cases where his bjection was one which the Licensing uthority was bound to take into con deration. Such cases included "every lplication . . . for the variation" of an licence "by a direction that additional :hides shall be specified therein [Section
(3)]." They argued that Highland aulage sought to vary the application ithout increasing the number of vehicles. id that such an application did not fall ithin Section 11 (3).
In support of this argument they ioted the appeal decision in the case of R.A.H. Transporters, Ltd. The relevant part of this decision stated: "In our view the mere substitution of a vehicle for a vehicle specified in a licence, even though the substituted vehicle is of a greater weight unladen than the vehicle it replaces, is not to be regarded as an application under• Section 11 (3) for a direction that an additional vehicle shall be specified in the licence."
The Tribunal have held that the application by Highland Haulage did, in fact, fall within Section 11 (3), and have given their reasons in detail for thinking so.
They say that the passage quoted from the R.A.H. Transporters case cannot be supported and should not be followed. The Licensing Authority was bound under Section 11 (2) to take the appellants' objections into consideration, and they were entitled under Section 15 (1) to appeal.
"Whenever in the exercise of his discretion a Licensing Authority allows a person who has not a statutory right to be heard as an objector to take part in an inquiry, the wiser course is to allow him both to cross-examine and to call evidence if he so desires," the Tribunal add.