Legal Submission Over-ruled by Tribunal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON Tuesday. before the Transport Tribunal. Mr. K. Schiemann, for respondents, Deamer Bros. Ltd., Hitchin, submitted that an appeal lodged by the Stevenage Removal Co. was not properly constituted, in that the grounds of the appeal were not stated. The Tribunal allowed Mr. A. D. P. Hurst, a joint proprietor of the company, presenting his case in person, to amend his notice of appeal (to the effect that the decision was against the weight of the evidence) to comply with the rules. The appeal was dismissed,
Mr. Hurst appealed against the refusal by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority (Mr. D. I. R. Muir) of a B-licence application for a 3-ton van to carry household effects and office equipment within 100 miles of Stevenage.
When the inquiry was heard last December, said Mr. Hurst, five similar applications were pending, and the LA reserved his decision until the other cases were heard. Although four of the applications were subsequently granted, Mr. Hurst continued, his application was not. He thought it wrong that those able to pay high fees for expert representation should succeed. He had, himself, used an Austin Minivan to move his own furniture a short distance at Stevenage owing to the charges of established removers in the area. Their price "was so outrageous they had priced themselves out ".
Mr. Schiemann quoted High Court cases from the 1880s from which, he suggested, the present rules regarding grounds of appeal stemmed. Because Mr. Hurst had submitted no grounds in his letter signifying his appeal, he could not now present some. There was, therefore, no appeal -to amend.