No Evidence of Need for Annis Services, says Mr. Letts
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN the Annis case was resumed VV before the Appeal Tribunal in London last week, Mr, H. Norman Letts, for the Road Haulage Executive, continued his examination of evidence given by witnesses who supported Annis and Co., Ltd., before the Metropolitan Licensing Authority. • Twenty-eight persons were called; Mr. Letts has so far dealt wZ. the evidence of nearly half of them,
Mr. Letts held that the complete change that had taken place in the company's business put it in the position of having to prove need for its services. In dealing with the witnesses' evidence, he submitted in each instance that their testimony did not assist in this respect.
One witness said that he favoured the employment of Annis and Co., Ltd., because of a tendency by Pickfords, Rudds and Cliffords to band together, said Mr. Letts.
Mr. E. S. Shrapnell-Smith, a member of the Tribunal: "Then he would say that there should be room for the independent operator?"
Mr. Letts: "Some of us may agree with him in a personal capacity, but that is not evidence of need.'
On the company's practice of notifying the different police authorities by tele.plione before the conveyance of an abnormal load, counsel held that, because Pickfords preferred to give two days' notification by post, as was required by the Authorization of Special Types Order, it could not be held that Pickfords was less efficient because of the delay.
During the hearing in the lower court, continued Mr. Letts, he tried to obtain evidence of abstraction of traffic by rate-cutting, but failed to do so. However, in the cases of Crow, Catchpole, Ltd., and other companies, some traffic had passed to Annis and Co., Ltd., from his client. The Rudd fleet had not increased before or since nationalization, he said, The chairman, Mr, N. L. Macaskie, KC., required details of the dimensions of the vehicles of Annis and Co., Ltd., so as to ascertain whether, in the event of the company's winning the appeal, its vehicles would operate in the excluded-traffics field, under the Authorization of Special Types Order, or within the 25-mile radius, or, further, with permits, if the vehicles came within the Construction and Use Regulations.
When the case is resumed from January 16-19 next, it is likely that Mr. F. Annis. director, will he ea:led to give this information.