FIVE TRANSPORT LICENCES

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24910, 25 June 1946, Page 6

FIVE TRANSPORT LICENCES

GRANT TO BURNETTS MOTORS UPHELD

MID-CANTERBURY APPEAL

DISALLOWED

The appeal of Mid-Canterbury Transport, Ltd., against five additional vehicle authorities being granted to Burnetts Motors, Ashburton, was disallowed by the Transport Appeal Authority (Sir Francis Frazer) yesterday The hearing of the appeal and evidence lasted more than six hours. Messrs C. S. Thomas. (Christchurch) and V. W. Russell (Ashburton) appeared for Burnetts Motors, and Messrs T. P. Cleary (Wellington) and R. A. Young (Christchurch) for the appellants. It was admitted, said Sir Francis Frazer, giving his decision, that Mr Burnett required more licences to carry on his present business. It was unfortunate that in 1941-42, when control of licences was very strict, the decision resulted in his losing his appeal for increased licences. At that time the policy was to make use, as far as possible, of all existing vehicle authorities in a district before granting further vehicle authorities. That was a war-time measure; but the peace-time policy had been clearly set out by the department itself, and his own appeal decisions.

The position in which Burnetts Motors found themselves was such as to necessitate their working vehicles very long hours,- and their men long hours, and their obtaining a large number of temporary licences. All their efforts to cope with the business with an insufficient number of vehicle authorities were not illegal. Some of the business was genuine ancillary business and probably some was not. “I agree when Mr Cleary says it would be improper to legitimise a business that has . been built up by irregular means; but I do not know whether I can say that it has been built up by irregular means,” said Sir Francis Frazer. Regular means were used and then not to disappoint' customers, vehicles, which strictly speaking should not have been used, were used. The figures forJL94I, when Burnetts Motors had 37 vehicles and nine vehicle authorities, was that the excess of vehicles a day for a period was only 2.4. Looking at the facts as a whole and at the returns as to the increases in cartage and production of every kind, Sir Francis Frazer said he did not think five vehicle authorities was unreasonable, although he admitted that the evidence did not enable one to say whether the number should be five, six, or seven. Having regard to the fact that nine vehicle authorities were already in use, and a good deal of the ancillary work should come under licence, he did not feel justified in altering the number of licences granted.

“I agree with Mr Cleary about further applications,” said Sir Francis Frazer. “On the general evidence I have had to-day, if any more vehicle authorities are applied for and the matter comes to me on appeal, I would want far more documentary and more strongly documented evidence than I have had to-day. The book referred to as ‘the Bible’ can very well be brought up to date.” Rehabilitation Case The appeal by Mid-Canterbury Transport, Ltd., against the granting of a new licence to S. D. Baxter for Public Works Department cartage on the irrigation scheme at Mayfield was also disallowed. Messrs Cleary and Young appeared for the appellants, and Mr F. P. Hill for Baxter, and Mr R. A. Cuthbert for the R.S.A. “This is a type of rehabilitation I am not very happy about,” said Sir Francis Frazer. “It is more of a licenc.e for cartage for the Public Works Department. That is not a very satisfactory example of rehabilitation, because when the department’s works for the district are completed it is possible that the man will not be able to get another contract, and may apply for a general goods licence and there may not be room for him. But in the present application it is quite clear that Mid-Canterbury has a number of casual vehicles, and that the department indicated a preference for a permanent vehicle for the job. That appeal should be disallowed also; but I should emphasise a«warning to Baxter that because he got this contract and licence that is not a guarantee in the future that if he applies for a licence he will automatically get one in exchange for his P.W.D. licence.” The appeal of Mid-Canterbury Transport, Ltd., against an amendment of M. A. Collison’s licence extending a restricted vehicle authority to a general goods authority was partly upheld. Mr Russell appeared for respondent.

The chairman said he was quite worried about this case. He had to be perfectly satisfied under section 26 of the Transport Licensing Act that the licence was desirable. To convert a restricted licence into a general goods licence was equivalent to issuing a new lie .nice. He was not quite satisfied that Collison required a general goods licence. It was stated that Mr R. A. Burnett had undertaken to give him work carrying coal from another mine should the Newburn Coal Company not be able to supply the coal. He could see no objection to Collison having a back loading licence and carrying coal in the Geraldine County. He would allow the appeal to the extent that it would permit the carriage of coal to the Geraldine County and to backload with general goods. He thought he should defer an unrestricted general goods licence until it was seen how Collison got on with the extension. He was not satisfied trot the evidence was sufficiently strong to justify a straight-out general goeds licence in exchange for the restricted goods licence.