For 'Required' Read 'Requested'
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
r OR some time now, at protracted I intervals, a battle has been taking place before the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, over an application by Refrigerated Transport Ltd.—a London meat haulage firm—to carry meat and other refrigerated foods for a named customer within 200 miles. Apart from British Railways and BRS (Meat Haulage) Ltd., a posse of about half a dozen prominent meat hauliers appeared as objectors.
A fourth day has been set aside for the hearing to be continued and because the matter is, in effect, sub judice, I do not propose to go into the merits, or otherwise, of the case. But an interesting point arose during the last hearing concerning requests by solicitors for documents or other information from applicants or objectors.
Briefly, the reasons for most of the adjournments have been because of a misunderstanding over the presentation of certain figures by the applicants and, because of this, solicitors E. Edwards, Son and Noice, who represented the majority of the objectors, sent a " notice " to the applicants in the follow
ing legal terms. Take notice ", it said, "that you are hereby required to produce and show to the court on the hearing of this application, all writings and documents in your custody, possession or power, containing any entry, memorandum or minute relating to the matters in question in this application." It went on to specify that the applicants should produce drivers' records and certifie( accounts.,
Upon reading this document, Mr Muir stopped the proceedings and toh counsel, Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, tha he took exception to the form of th. notice. "It may be appropriate in thl Law court," he said, " but I don't thin] it is appropriate here." Mr. Muir wen on to say that if such a notice were sen to any uninstructed applicant (he mean an applicant who had not a solicitor o advocate representing him) he migh think that it was the Licensing Authorit! who required it. Mr. Muir thought tha in future the word "requested" shoulo be used instead of "required ".
Agreeing, Mr. Jackson-Lipkii explained that such a document woulo never be sent to anybody other thai solicitors. The wording would b altered accordingly. After repeating tha the notice was not a form that he woull like to see applied to proceedings unde the Road Traffic Act, Mr. Muir allowe the application—which was to add si vehicles to an A licence—to continue.
Of course, neither an Authorit nor objectors can require an applicar to produce evidence in support of a application. But to ignore requests fo more details from an Authority cod well be detrimental to an applicant' case. Licensing courts are not strictl courts of law, and with due respect t my barrister and solicitor friend practising in the Metropolitan court, M. Muir's gentle reminder of this was, pei haps, a little overdue.