AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence "Transfer " Taken to Appeal

7th February 1936
Page 77
Page 77, 7th February 1936 — Licence "Transfer " Taken to Appeal
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?

SECTION 11 (3) (b) of the 1933 Act has not been satisfied, said Mr. B. de H. Pereira, in an appeal by the L.N.E. Ilailway Co. against the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority's decision to grant an A licence to Messrs. W. J. Butler and F. L. Marshall (Marshall Transport Service), Hull.

Mr. Pereira, for the L.N.E.R., declared that Mr. Butler entered the haulage business in 1933, and that Mr. Marshall unsuccessfully applied, in June, 1935, for permission to acquire an additional vehicle and to hire another. Later, the two men entered into partnership. The firm successfully applied, on October 11 last, for a licence to take over Mr. Butler's vehicles and to acquire two additional machines. According to Mr. Pereira, Section 11 (3) (b) of the Act had not been fulfilled, because at the time of the firm's application there was no c'efinite licence under which the vehicles in question were authorized. It was stated that Mr. Butler's vehicles were formerly owned by a Mrs. Havarshaw, of Hull, who had been operating for a number of years. Mr. Pereira argued that when, in October, application was made, Mrs. Havershaw had no vehicles.

The Appeal Tribunal decided that the application fell within the provisions of Section 11, so that the Licensing Authority was obliged to consider objections. The hearing commenced at York, on Monday, and was continued on Tuesday.


comments powered by Disqus