1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Transport Tribunal hearings
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What is a racehorse?
• An incomplete decision was given on the appeal of W. G. R. Wightman, which was heard by the Transport Tribunal in London last Friday. L. G. Tarrant was respondent.
Mr. D. Keene, for the appellant, said that Mr. Wightman, a breeder and trainer of racehorses, had applied for the renewal of his B licence with the variations of conditions from racehorses under training at the licensee's establishment within 200 miles of Upham Post Office to horses under the care of the licensee at his establishment within 300 miles of Upham Post Office. It was also intended to increase the weight of the horse box from CI tons to 5 tons. The renewal was granted but the variation refused.
Mr. Keene explained that the variation was sought to clear up any ambiguity as to whether yearlings and brood mares could be ▪ termed racehorses.
At the Inquiry a Major Gibson, member of the Jockey Club and a committee member of the National Hunt—of which he was Senior Steward in 1966—said that yearlings were usually handled and worked quietly and were thus in training from very early on. Mares were often sent to stud, covered and returned straight away to training. Major Gibson was, contended Mr. Keene, the most expert witness produced by either side, and it would have been better had the opinion of an expert been given precedence over that of the deputy LA.
As to the increase in radius, Mr. Keene said that following the closing down of various race courses in the South, there had been a shift of emphasis in the sport to the North. Moreover, races in the North were easier to win and often offered bigger purses. As almost all the business at present being subcontracted by the appellant to the respondent, a haulier, fell within the 200 miles radius, there would be little question of abstraction.
Mr. P. Kenworthy-Browne, for the respondent, denied that there was sufficient evidence for the increase in the appellant's radius and also that there was any ambiguity in the wording of his licence.
Yearlings, he contended, were taught such basic things as accepting halters and boxes, but this could in no event be called training. Brood mares, he said, were taken out of training when they were sent to be covered.
The tribunal allowed that part of the appeal concerning the increase in radius and will give its decision in writing as regards the change in the wording of the conditions.
LA's jurisdiction questioned
• No judgment was given by the Transport Tribunal on the appeal of Fred Jones and Co. (Swansea) Ltd. against the action taken by the South Wales LA at a Section 178 inquiry. The appeal was heard in London last Friday.
Mr. J. Main, for the appellant company, said that the company had been in existence since 1898 and this had been the first time any disciplinary action had been taken against it. Before the inquiry, the company had been running 11 vehicles on A licence and four on B licence.
On expiry of the B licence in October of last year the LA had ordered a fleet inspection and had subsequently called the appellant company before him under Section 178. At the inquiry evidence had been given by a vehicle examiner concerning the state of one of the company's A-licensed vehicles. Although the company claimed that this vehicle was, in fact, under repair, the LA had decided, said Mr. Main, to curtail the A licence by removing three vehicles from it. The B licence was renewed for one year for only two vehicles.
Mr. Main contended that the LA should have found out whether the vehicle was, in fact, under repair. In any case he was not entitled, claimed Mr. Main, to take action on the A-licensed vehicles at an inquiry concerning the renewal of a B licence.
The Tribunal will give its decision in writing.
Suspension stands
• The appeal of Page and Co. (Contractors) Ltd., of Wokingham, against a three-month suspension of a C-licensed vehicle by the South Eastern LA was refused by the Transport Tribunal in London last week.
Mr. P. H. Mace, for the appellant, said that the company had been fined £50 after being found guilty at Bracknell magistrates' court last March of operating a vehicle with dangerous tyres. This, he said, resulted from the use the vehicle had had on demolition work.
When the company was called before the LA under Section 178 in July, said Mr. Mace, its representation could be described as "little more than pathetic". The LA decided to suspend a vehicle for three months and chose the newest of the company's four vehicles. This, Mr. Mace contended, was too excessive a punishment which put the public to danger; had the LA decided to suspend an older vehicle, the company would have had the chance of carrying out any necessary maintenance on that vehicle before putting it back on the road. As it was, he said, a new vehicle with air brakes had been taken off the road while an older vehicle with hydraulic brakes was still running.
Since the proceedings a new transport manager had been taken on and a daily check and three-monthly documented maintenance system had been instituted for all vehicles.
Mr. Mace suggested to the Tribunal that, were it not to allow the appeal by quashing the LA's suspension, it should substitute the oldest vehicle in the fleet for the one at present suspended.
Mr. G. D. Squibb, QC, president of the Tribunal, said that the LA had been right in imposing a penalty, and that such penalties served not only as punishment to the wrong-doer but also as a deterrent to others. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered the suspension to take effect from November 21.
Appeal for Continental licence
• The Transport Tribunal reserved its judgment on an appeal by Tranfitex Export Services Ltd., of Manchester, heard in London on Wednesday. There were seven respondents including Pickfords Ltd. and British Railways.
Mr. J. S. Lawton, for the appellant company, said the appeal arose from the refusal of the North Western deputy LA to license four artics and four trailers to carry goods onto the Continent.
At the inquiry the deputy LA had made it clear that it was only within his descretion to grant a licence in regard to traffic within this country; for this, he had ruled that no prima facie case had been made. It was on this question of discretion, said Mr. Lawton. that the appeal was based.
In the lower court, he said, the question of his flag waving had been raised. This, he thought, was fair and he would press the point to the Tribunal that it would be to Britain's advantage were Continental money paid to British hauliers for work in Europe.
Objectors other than BR and Pickfords, said Mr. Lawton, were only concerned with haulage within Great Britain. The appellant. he said, would still wish to sub-contract to English hauliers work which terminated at port in England.
Mr. J. Booth, for all the respondents at British Railways, urged the Tribunal to agree with the deputy LA's finding that there had been no prima facie case made to support the application.
It could not be either good law or common sense, he contended, to ignore the licensing requirements of this country in order to put more vehicles on the road in Europe.
The Tribunal will give its judgment in writing.