AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No Right of Appeal Against Licence Variation, Says Tribunal

9th January 1953, Page 30
9th January 1953
Page 30
Page 30, 9th January 1953 — No Right of Appeal Against Licence Variation, Says Tribunal
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?

THE, Transport [Appeal] Tiibunal has decided that it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by the Road Haulage and Railway Executives against a variation of a B licence held by Kitts Transport Co., Willis Street, Poplar.

In April last year, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority authorized the company to carry hot tarmacadam and asphalt for four concerns within a 50mile radius of Canning Town station, and in September added a clause to the licence for the carriage of certain road materials for one of the concerns within a 40-mile radius of the station.

The Executives appealed, but Mr. C. R. Beddington, for the respondent, held that they had no right to do so. In its decision, the Tribunal states that the only provision in the Road and Rail Traffic Act which gives an objector a right to appeal is Section 15 (1)(b). The right so given is limited to objections which the Licensing Authority is bound to take into consideration.

The only provision, which imposes a duty on the Licensing Authority to take an objection into consideration Is Section 11(2). The duty so imposed is limited to objections on applications to which Section 11 applies, and the only applications for variations to which Section 11 relates are those falling within Section 11(3).

The Tribunal considers that the application did not fall into Section 11. (3) and, therefore, the Executives' objection was not one which the Licensing Authority was bound to take into consideration. Consequently, there was no right of appeal.

Giving reasons for its finding, the Tribunal says that the material words in Section II (3) are; "This section shalt apply to every application . . for the variation of ' a B licence' by a direction . . . that the district specified in the licence . . . shall be varied or extended." Arguments submitted were confined to elucidation of "varied or extended."

The appellants argued that "varied" applied to the reduction of an operating area and the respondent that this term had no spatial connotation. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide between either construction of the phrase, as the application did not affect the district already specified, but sought to add a new class of goods to be carried in a different district.

[The hearing was reported in "The Commercial Motor" on December 5 and 19, 19521


comments powered by Disqus