TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL IN SCOTLAND
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, in Edinburgh,
on Tuesday, rejected an appeal by James. Sey, of Huntly, against the refusal by the Scottish deputy Licensing Authority to grant a 10-mile extension to a limited B licence.
Mr. W. D. Connochie, for the appellant, said that the firm carried on business from Huntly, within a.15-mile radius, and wanted to extend this to 25 miles.
This case was one of those where the applicant was the local carrier who should have facilities to give reasonable service to his customers, he went en. The deputy had said that -someone would suffer if an extension was grantedand although he had sympathy, stronger evidence was required, Mr. Connochie contended that the deputy Authority should have taken into account the firm's service and the changes in the area.
Mr. G. D. Squibb, Q.C., president of the Tribunal, drew attention to the fact that the present licence had expired in March and so there was no ease for appeal, Mr. Connochie checked with Aberdeen and a new licence had in fact been isued. Mr. Squibb then indicated that the appeal had thus -been made on a dead licence. He said that Sey should apply for the new licence in the proposed terms and the Licensing Authority would then consider the new 'application.
Mr. Connochie asked for guidance as to the terms of the decision which would have been given if the licence had not expired. But Mr. Squibb ruled that any expression of opinion would prejudice the,position of the Licensing Authority in any future application. Mr. Connochie suggested that where an appeal was lodged any existing Licence should be continued pending the hearing. Mr. Squibb said that the correct course would be to apply for a new licence in the new terms required. "We must abide by the rules. This is now an ineffective appeal and it would not be right for tis to express a view on the old licence". Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Road Services (Caledonian) Ltd. and Alexander Hayton, said the application was probably unique.
Brown had substituted the usual onus by saying all an applicant need prove is that his vehicles were fully employed.
On the question of inconvenience the Authority and then the Tribunal bad criticized the witness for General Milk Products, the main customer, saying be had spoken generally instead of specifically. There was evidence that the business of General Milk Products was increasing but not that the appellant's share of this was increasing. Mr. Campbell Wardlaw agreed that return loads were legitimate but not to the detriment of the main customers, as Was the ease here.
Ruling against the appellants, Mr. Squibb, the Tribunal chairman, outlined the history of the case and said it did not seem to be seriously contested that inconvenience had occurred because of pressure of the appellant's business, particularly the return traffic for McGill and Smith Ltd. In the Tribunal's view, that explanation, while it might be a correct one, did not demonstrate a need for further vehicles to carry any of General Milk Prodncts traffic. It was for the appellant to operate in such a way as to give satisfaction to its main customers, said the chairman, The company may have allowed secondary work to interfere with the proper conduct of its original business, but that did not justify going to the Authority. The appeal was dismissed.