'Hauliers are like prima donnas' barrister tells the Tribunal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
6 Or HESE objectors based their case on the fact that the Saturday rate was unattractive, that they had to queue for loads, that in their opinion their proportion of tarred stone was in excess of other operators," said Mr. R. Yorke, when he appeared for appellant Robson (Haltwhistle) Ltd. before the Transport Tribunal last week. .
He told the Tribunal that far from being a basis for objection these were reasons why the objectors had refused to supply the appellant with vehicles. "They are like prima donnas", he said. "They are in effect saying, 'Alter your way of working and we'll give you vehicles'."
The appeal was against the refusal by the Northern LA of an application for a new B licence by Robson to carry agricultural lime, road and building equipment and materials and solid fuel for named customers in Southern Scotland and Northern England.
This was substantially altered at the hearing before the Tribunal to Slag and Fertilizers for Western Spreaders Ltd., within Northern England and Southern Scotland and agricultural lime, road and building materials for Harrisons Limeworks Ltd., within 65 miles of the base at Thurso.
Robson told the Tribunal that prior to the hearing it had been wholly acquired by Harrisons Limeworks Ltd., a firm which operated vehicles on C licence.
The 'season'
Mr. David Keene appeared for the seven respondents—J. E. Swainson Ltd., W. Gibson and Son, J. R. Taylor and Son, G. A. Stamper, E. and N. Farrer, Barnett and Graham Ltd., and Seymour Bros. He suggested that two suitable licences were available for such an applicant. Since the traffic was seasonal a short-term B licence would suffice, or since the appellant was now a wholly owned subsidiary a grant under Section 180 would be appropriate:
To these points Mr. Yorke replied that the season, if such existed, lasted for at least nine months. Further, since Section 180 could only authorize a similar licence to that held by the parent company, such a grant would not meet the application. Harrisons held a C licence and Robson had sought to carry for Western Spreaders Ltd.
It was Robson's submission that the respondents, who had not been represented at the public inquiry, had failed to show any availability but contended that a prima facie case had not been established.
Both advocates suggested that the inquiry had been so confused and inconclusive that it rendered any coherent interpretation of proceedings most difficult. Each agreed that much of what should have been produced in support or rebuttal had not been produced nor had it been called for.
The Tribunal reserved its decision.