AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Frames Try to

8th January 1954, Page 37
8th January 1954
Page 37
Page 37, 8th January 1954 — Frames Try to
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?

ACLAIM that it was unjust for his clients to be " chained " to Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., who were stern competitors for foreign tourists, was made by Mr. J. Amphlett, in London, on Tuesday, when he appeared for Frames Tours, Ltd., in their appeal against the Deputy Metropolitan Licensing Authority's refusal to grant them two extended tours from London.

Mr. Amphlett said that his clients were both booking agents and tour operators. in 1948 they were given permission to run extended tours, confined to overseas visitors, for a year, but it was too late for them to operate them that year.

In 1949 they did not apply for renewal of the licence, but agreed that Southdown should apply for a licence for the tours. This was granted, and since then Southdown coaches and drivers had been used by Frames for these tours.

Applications Refused By 1951, Frames felt that they should operate the tours, but their applications for licences in that year and last September were refused.

Mr. M. A. B. King Hamilton, for Southdown. submitted that the Deputy Licensing Authority could not have come to any other decision. Having regard to the refusal of a licence to Frames in 1951, the application could have been granted only if Frames could have first shown that there had been an overwhelming change of circumstances since the previous refusal, and, secondly, that these circumstances were sufficient to warrant a grant.

"In this case, Frames were unable to show any change of circumstances, let alone an overwhelming one," said Mr. King Hamilton.


comments powered by Disqus