• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248

Advice Ignored Then Appeal is Dismissed

Zoom page

7th May 1965

Page 73

Page 73, 7th May 1965 — Advice Ignored Then Appeal is Dismissed

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

At"`". !GH the Transport Tribunal president advised an appellant to withdraw his appeal or request an )djournment so that he could be legally -epresented. Mr. Leonard Ward, -rtanaging director of the appellant cornJany. S. A. Flint Ltd., decided to press he appeal to its conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed last week

ifter the president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, tad stated that the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. C. J. 1.4actionald. might well have refused the ippliation at the first day's hearing, lecause after a five-month adjournment, .o enable further information to be proiuced. it was still not forthcoming. The ipplica !ion had been for a four-vehicle 3 licence renewal, with considerable !xtensions to radius.

The respondents, British Railways 3oard and the Transport Holding Cornany, were represented by Mr. G. Mercer.

Mr. Ward produced a file of corre

.pondenc(:t, not the subject of evidence at he inquiry, but the president told him it vas inadmissible and also pointed. out. hat no grounds for the appeal had been odged.

Mr. Mercer conceded that if his clients

vere not prejudiced by the late disclosure tf. grounds. he would not object to their liselesuie to the Tribunal. Asking for eave to add grounds of his appeal, Mr: iVarci made the following points:— .

That contrary to assurances given by he LA there had been difficulties in the corking of the licences; that the evidence )f. his chief witness—his father, L. V. Vard had not been accepted in the sense n which it had been given; and that his

olicitors acted against him rather than oe him.

Mr. Mercer objected to grounds one trid three, but agreed that the second ;round could, perhaps, be understood.

The president told Ward he would .110w the secon'd ground but no fresh :vidence could he permitted. " If you vant to do that the proper course is to nake a fresh application."

Mr. Ward said he objected to the leputy LA's comment at the inquiry: '... as you have brought a witness with. 'citt, I will listen for what it is worth."

My father was the witness ", said Ward.

The inference was that he was not a valid customer. but he was the managing direct,t . of my main customer firm."

Having said this. Mr. Ward told the Tribunal and he did not feel qualified to argue the case and suggested art adjournment. only to be told by the president that this would involve the other side in expense. Ward: "How much would it cost? Mr. Mercer was unable to give in estimate and, to solve an impasse. he suggested that it might help Ward if he gave the respondents' case first and let Ward answer it. The president told Ward it would be more satisfactory to withdraw the appeal and make a fresh start. Mit Mr. Ward decided to accept Mr. Mei eel's proposal.

Mr. Mercer described the wide interests of BR and BRS in fruit and vegetable traffics, He then listed a number of serious licence irregularities, and suggested that the B earnings per vehicle, equivalent to d.335 per annum, made a poor basis for a four-vehicle grant. S. A. Flint Ltd. was liquidated for nine months, Mr. Mercer continued', and Ward's interest began in March, 1964. Other businesses operated by the appellant " were wrapped in some obscurity ".

No evidence had been given by the official receiver at the inquiry, said Mr. Mercer. .[here was bankruptcy and business ceased for a time. Mr. L. V. Ward ran a large fruit importing business, and Contract A vehicles supplied by another of his son's companies, Intermarket Delivery Services, had been withdrawn without Mr. L. V. Ward's knowledge. -the full story had not been told

about the Iruin interlocking interests in this case.

Mr. Ward said the vehicles referred to by Mr. Ntere,s.t were shown on more than one licence because the LA had taken so long to consider the licence renewal. Many new vehicles had been purchased. Also. an A-licensed vehicle had been stolen. His hooks had been found to be in order by the official receiver and returned. but they were not in possession when the renewal application was made.