Horsebox Appeal Dismissed
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport [Appeal] Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by the Railway Executive, Lambonrn Racehorse Transport Services, Ltd., and Major W. H. Borwick, Ltd., against the grant by the Western Licensing Authority of a B licence to Hinton Parva Racing Stables, Ltd., enabling this concern, which appeared as the respondent, to run a horsebox to meetings at various places, but confined to the carriage of stock trained by the concern itself.
No important issues were involved in deciding the appeal, which was a simple case of finding whether the grant of the licence was justified in the light of evidence produced by each side. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Executive's facilities were suitable or adequate for the respondent's requirements; also its rates were higher than those of the other appellants, and this could not be ignored in seeking an explanation of the comparatively snlall use made of the railways.
Evidence Negatived The establishment Major W. H.
Borwick, Ltd., was 15 miles away from the Hinton Parva training stables, and the evidence of the manager of the Borwick company was negatived by an admission that he did not normally work for customers as far away as the respondent.
There was no question that the Lam bourn services were lacking, but, again, this concern was a long way from Hinton Parva. It had been contended for Lambourn that occasions when this concern could not provide vehieles were at peak periods. Referring to the decision in the Bristow appeal. it was submitted that the requirements of peak periods afforded no justification for the grant of a licence for transport in excess of normal requirements.
The Tribunal drew a distinction between Bristow and the case under
review. Bristow concerned the movement of cattle from market. It was not possible " to compare the need of valuable and often temperamental racehorses for a speedy return to their stables after attending a race meeting' with the need for returning cattle, pigs and sheep to their destinations after attending a cattle market."
In the course of the hearing before the Authority, it was stated that Hinton
Parva wished to run its own vehicle to obviate risks of leakage of stable information, infection, nobbling and doping. When the case came before the Tribunal, counsel for the road transport appellants described the .alleged risk of doping as "fantastic." ,
In its written decision, however, the Tribunal recognizes the desire of the respondent to reduce the risks of interference with horses in transit, and considers that these are greater when hired transport is employed, ,particularly when horses belonging to more than one trainer are being carried in the' same vehicle.