Existing Hauliers Would Suffer, Tribunal Told
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON the fourth and final day of the appeal by Merchandise Transport, Ltd., of Ferry Lane, Tottenham, a subsidiary of Harris Lebus, Ltd., against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's refusal to allow them to add 119 vehicles on A licence to their fleet, Mr. D. L. McDonnell, for the objectors, said that the trade of existing road and rail hauliers would suffer if the appeal was allowed.
Mr. McDonnell said; "What the apel!ants are saying, in fact, is this: If a C licence holder can incorporate a subsidiary which he owns he has now split his organization into two legal persons. Therefore, ultimately, the subsidiary that is to run the transport is entitled to be granted an A licence." The consequence would be that when the vehicles had performed their outward journey, they would be entitled to carry ' return loads.
"-If that is so, it will utterly destroy the distinction which Parliament has made between C licences which can be obtained as a right and only enable their holders to carry goods in connection with their own trade or business, and the A licences which the Licensing Authority grants after exercising his discretion and taking into consideration objections and so forth, "Many people may think C licensed vehicles should be entitled to carry return loads. The matter has been raised in Parliament many times, but in this present year Parliament has seen fit to pass the Road Traffic Act of 1960, preserving that distinction."
Mr. C. R. Beddington, for Merchandise Transport, said the objectors had failed to prove they would suffer a loss of trade if the appeal was allowed.
If their loss would be as great as-fhey had contended, he felt sure that there would have been something more like 600 objectors at the original hearing, rather than the 60 odd who were in attendance.
The Tribunal reserved its decision.