Tribunal Gives Reasons for Car Transporters Decision
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LLEGATIONS by Motor Vehicle A n Collection Ltd. that an associated company of Anglo Scottish Car Deliveries Ltd., had operated in breach of undertakings given to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, were not grounds on which the LA, Mr. D. 1. R. Muir, should have refused to grant two B-licensed transporters to Anglo Scottish. This was one of the findings of the Transport Tribunal, given in written reasons for refusing appeals by Motor Vehicle Collection and B. J. Henry Ltd., which was announced in The Commercial Motor last week.
The appellants, who were represented by Mr M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, had based their appeal against the grant on grounds that the respondents had not made out a prima facie case; that there were already sufficient transporters available to do Vauxhall work; and that in any event the previous conduct of the respondents as carriers of goods was such that they ought not to be licensed to operate any transporters.
The Tribunal, in its judgment, said that a prima facie ease had been made for the licensing of more vehicles for Vauxhall work. It appeared that figures of availability produced by the objectors (now the appellants) had been " distorted " by the occurrence of the annual holidays in the motor industry.
Dealing with the question of the previous conduct of Anglo Scottish, the Tribunal said that the conduct complained of was not directly that of the respondents, but of an associated company (Vehicle Clearances Ltd.) which carried out work for Anglo Scottish under sub-contract. Vehicle Clearances the Tribunal continued, had undertaken not to carry vehicles of certain organizations, and two of their transporters had been the subject of a notice alleging licence breaches given by the appellants to the respondents at the time of the application hearing.
" It does not appear to us that the facts of this case would justify a finding that the respondents and Vehicle Clearances Ltd. together constitute one commercial unit ", the Tribunal found, and this could not be a ground for refusing to grant a licence to the respondents.