Relief Sought From Binding Undertaking'
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ErFORE the Transport Tribunal on
Tuesday, a Prestatyn parcels carrier, whose traffic from Liverpool had greatly increased, sought relief from a " binding Undertaking" given at a 1962public inquiry. The decision ,was reserved..
W. Cooper and Sons (Carriers) Ltd. Were appellants against a decision of the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, and were represented by Mr. J. A. Backhouse. The respondents, F. D. Hulse Ltd,. of Liverpool, were represented by Mr. J. A.
Baker. .
Mr. Backhouse said that the decision of the deputyLA in refusing the three additional vehicles applied for was partly because of Cooper's refusal to accept that their undertaking, at an inquiry in 1962, to operate only two vehicles out of Liverpool was permanently binding. The deputy LA had accepted that a case had been made out for two additional Vehicles—one to serve Manchester and the other North Wales--but his clients Were not 'prepared to prejudice their Position by accepting the grant.
-. Continuing, Mr. .Backhouse said that the purpose of the appeal was to seek clarification, and to obtain some relief for the two grossly overloaded vehicles • now operating out of Liverpool " tailboard loaded".
Mr. Baker suggested that the undertaking of 1962, which had been given alter careful explanation by the tA, should and ought to subsist, for the price of the undertaking was that an objection had been withdrawn. Mr. Jolliffe had said to Cooper that it was "as binding as if. it were a part of your normal user ". No further help should be given to the appellants in Liverpool, said Mr. Baker. It did not follow that the two vehicles loaded to their tailboards were full of Liverpool traffic.