TRIBUNAL REFERS CASE BACK TO L.A.
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, sitting in London on Tuesday, referred an application back to the Northern deputy Licensing Authority after deciding that a prima fade case had been made out by A.S.H. Transport Services Ltd., of Gateshead, for the variation of an A licence. For A.S.H., Mr. R. C. Yorke said that his clients were appealing against the deputy Authority's refusal to add eight vehicles (four tippers and four flats) which were currently authorized in a B licence, to an A licence under which A.S.H. was authorized-to operate five vehicles. He said that the application had been made to consolidate the fleet. For the past six years the company had been operating purely as a transport undertaking, although the managing director, Mr. A. H. Home, also carried on business as a coal merchant. Referring to the public inquiry which was held last May, Mr. Yorke said that the case had taken a rather peculiar course. It seemed to be regarded throughout as an attempt to increase the transport facilities available. The application was eventually refused without there having been any evidence given on behalf of the objectors at all,
Mr. Yorke submitted that the principle established in the Clark appeal covered the application, but with one difference— a difference in the appellant's favour. A.S.H. already held an A licence, whereas Clark had not. If the application was allowed, it would not put a single ton of additional carrying capacity on the road which was not already there, he said.
Mr._ M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the Transport Holding Company and 13 independent respondents, said that it was not a question of law but a question of evidence and the Authority's discretion. He had never seen such "pitiful" documents as had been presented to the Authority. There was a complete absence of intelligible figures. The appellant had put forward a case based on the maladministration of his fleet, continued Mr. Jackson-Lipkin. He (the appellant) had said that because he had got into such a muddle with his vehicles operating under two different kinds of licence, he should have an A licence. Mr. Horne came before the Authority in truth as a coal merchant, and the case had to be considered rather like the Gale and Bird appeals. Giving the Tribunals judgment, Mr. G. D. Squibb, the president, said that there appeared to be two separate businesses run as independent concerns. The deputy Authority's evaluation of the case had been a correct one, but the Tribunal felt that the evidence of difficulty caused through lack of flexibility showed a prima fade case for the variation of the licence.The proper course was to refer the case back to the deputy Authority to enable him to hear the objectors' evidence and to consider his final decision in the light of that evidence.