AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Transport Tribunal Told of Extraordinary Proceedings'

8th February 1963
Page 41
Page 41, 8th February 1963 — Transport Tribunal Told of Extraordinary Proceedings'
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?

AFTER a hearing which lasted into the third day the Transport Tribunal in London last week reserved its decision in an appeal by 18 Birmingham hauliers against the granting of an A licence forthree .refrigerated vehicles to 'Refrigerated, Meat Traders Ltd., . of Aston, Birmingham.

Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the appellant companies, said the user granted was to carry meat, offal and poultry in Great Britain. The public inquiry, he said, took five days and ended in February last year. The West Midlands deputy Licensing Authority gave his decision in April and his reasons in July. Of the hearing, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said he had never encountered more extraordinary proceedings. "The issue of whether there was any need for these three vehicles was hardly touched upon. The hearing, if one could call it a hearing, delved very deeply into the realms of conjecture ", he continued. From the outset the deputy Authority was bewildered and bemused by the alleged Superiority of mechanical refrigeration as opposed to lather means Of refrigeration. He was unable to accept any evidence to the' contrary by the objectors and that led him to reject direct and uncontroverted evidence.

"There were men before him of many years' experience in the handling and carrying of meat and because of his strange fixation about mechanical refrigeration he rejected their evidence ", he said. The grant was made not on the need for vehicles but on the deputy Authority's own personal desire to educate hauliers and support technical progress. There was no evidence of a need for a change to mechanical refrigeration.

The objectors had showed there were efficient existing services for carrying meat in the area.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for Refrigerated Meat Traders, contended that there was a shortage and a need for refrigerated transport based in Birmingham. Witnesses had said at the public hearing that containers insulated with dry ice could carry frozen meat over long distances and fresh, chilled meat only over short distances.

The witnesses for both applicant and objectors had agreed that refrigerated transport was necessary to carry fresh meat on distances over 60 miles and it had never been the applicant's case that it wished to carry over short distances.

Customer after customer a business in the Birmingham meat market had given evidence to say that they had stopped having fresh meat carried over long distances because only insulated transport

was available and they had found it unsatisfactory. To keep fresh meat at its correct temperature of 36°F., refrigerated transport was necessary.

During the hearing the president of the Tribunal, Mr. G. D. Squibb, commented that the main principle was that when a man whose main business was other than that of a haulier wished to carry other people's. goods, then the appropriate licence was a B licence.

Edinburgh Fleet . .

Expansion Bid

IN order to expand its Edinburgh fleet to carry traffic in Great Britain for North British Rubber Co. Ltd., of Edinburgh, Charles Alexander and Partners (Transport) Ltd;, of Aberdeen, applied for A licences for 25 vehicles at Edinburgh on Monday. Mr. W. Hare, customer Service manager of North British Rubber, said that . the company had decided to switch from contract hiring and place the distribUtion of goods in the home market in the hands of one operator.. It was stressed that contract hiring had not always met requirements.

When Mr. Connochie, for the applicant, said that the desire of the manufacturer was the vital factor in such an application, Mr. W. F. Quin, the Scottish Licensing Authority; said: " The mere desire by •a manufacturer to have his goods carried by a particular haulier is only one factor ".

The hearing was adjourned.


comments powered by Disqus