Vital Decisions of the Appeal Tribunal p R1NC IPLES of national
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
importance concerning applications for licences in connection with the acquisition of businesses, conditions to be imposed on B licences and the duties and discretionary powers of Licensing Authorities, were laid down, last week, by the Appeal Tribunal. At a sitting on July 30, decisions were given in seven sets of appeals concerning 10 appellants. Five of the appeals were allowed and the other two were dismissed.
Costs were awarded in only two cases.
Section 11(3) (b): Authorities' Powers
LICENSING Authorities' powers in dealing with applications arising from the acquisition of haulage businesses were questioned in the appeal of Ex-Army Transport, Ltd., Salford, against the Western Licensing Authority's refusal of an A licence. The appeal concerned the company's Bristol clearing house.
• In November, 1935, Ex-Army Transport, Ltd., unsuccessfully applied for an A licence in respect of a vehicle run by one of its sub-contractors, Mr. W. C. True, of Bristol. Superficially, the application appeared to be one to which the provisions of Section 11 (3) (b) applied, and it was advertised as such in "Applications and Decisions."
The Tribunal comments: "The application was not, and could not have been, made under Section 11 (3) (b) and was not, could not be, one to take over the unexpired portion of Mr. True's licence. It was made, as it could only have been made, under Section 5 of the Act. . . ."
In the Tribunal's experience, many persons are under the impression that, if they make an application similar to ' that submitted by Ex-Army Transport, Ltd., they are automatically entitled to the licence. The reason for this misapprehension may have been due to such cases being described as under Section 11 (3) (b).
The application was heard in public, and it was stated at the inquiry that, about November, 1935, Mr. True agreed to sell to the company his business for a sum in cash and for an indemnity against his obligations. Mr. True was also to become an employee of ExArmy Transport, Ltd. On appeal, the agreement was said to have been lost or destroyed.
Mr. H. Backhouse, for Ex-Army Transport, Ltd., held that the Authority had acted illegally in publishing the application, holding an inquiry, allowing objectors to be heard and publishing his decision in "Applications and Decisions." The basis of Mr. Backhouse's argument was that the Authority had no express powers to adopt this procedure and that the application was not notifiable.
The only lawful means by which information could be obtained was for the Authority to avail himself of the provisions of Section 5 (2), and require the applicant to give him particulars. In support of this contention, Mr.
B30 Backhouse suggested that the only power which the Authority had to hold an inquiry was that given to him under Section 11 (5), which referred only to applications under Section 11.
Briefly, the Tribunal's view is as follows:—
The Authority was entitled to publish the application and his decision. The legislature intended to give Licensing Authorities express powers to hold inquiries in relation to the proper exercise of any of their functions under the Act, and did not intend to limit those powers to duties which they have to perform under Section 11. The Authority was entitled to hold the inquiry to obtain information which would enable him properly to use the discretion given to him under Section 6.
Whilst Section 5 (2) places an obli gation on the applicant to give information, the Authority may secure particulars from other sources, provided that, if the information sought appears to be contrary to the interests of the applicant, the last-named should have the opportunity of expressing his views on the subject. To hold an inquiry is the fairest way of affording that opportunity.
A Licensing Authority has discretion to grant or refuse an application under Section 11 (3) (b). In dealing with such an application, he should have regard not only to the character of the applicant, to the question whether a licence exists, whether there is a business to sell, and whether the applicant has acquired, or intends to purchase, that business, but also to matters referred to in Section 6 (2). The Authority was justified in allowing objectors to be heard as persons Who might be of assistance.
The Tribunal finds that there was no evidence that when Mr. True's vehicle was not available to Ex-Army Transport, Ltd., any difficulty in securing transport was experienced by the company. Moreover, the evidence was not conclusive that Mr. True's business was remunerative. The appeal is dismissed, with £28 12s. 8d. costs, divided between L. H. Dimond and Co., Ltd., G.W. Railway and L.M.S. Railway Co.