1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Tribunal Upholds Revocation
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, in a written judgment, has dismissed an appeal by Trenafon Transport Ltd., of Wednesfield, against the revocation of an A licence by the West Midland Licensing Authority, and also against the refusal of the Authority to grant a new A licence.
Describing the use of a vehicle outside the normal user specified in the A licence as "a flagrant case ", the Tribunal said the Licensing Authority was right to decline to pay any regard at all to the requirements of the appellant's customers and to reject the application outright. The Tribunal also considered, the judgment continued, that the Authority was right to revoke the appellant's licence.
During the appeal hearing (The Commercial Motor, February 21) Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin invited the Tribunal to say that the Authority's penalty was harsh and excessive. He explained how Mr. S. E. Foster, a director of the company, had purchased the shares and then, almost immediately, had become ill with a coronary thrombosis, which rendered him unable to control the business for nearly a year. When he returned, he had discovered that the vehicle had been integrated with his own A-licensed fleet and the normal user had been abandoned. It was as a result of his application to put his house in order that the revocation proceedings took place.
The Tribunal, in its judgment, said that Mr. Foster was a man who paid little regard to the legislation relating to hauliers and was prepared to flout it whenever it suited his purpose to do so.
(N. H. Tilsley comments on this judgment in "Licensing Casebook" on page 51.)