Appeals “Grizzling,” Counsel Claims

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 5

Appeals “Grizzling,” Counsel Claims

Appeals by unsuccessful applicants for taxi licences in Christchurch seemed nothing but a “grizzle” against applicants who had been successful, the Transport Licensing Appeal Authority (Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M.) was told yesterday.

Mr G. S. Brockett, appearing for a respondent, J. A. Milne, said tills in reply to submissions by Mr G. C. P. Beadel on behalf of an appellant, G. F. Greenlow.

The Appeal Authority was continuing the hearing of 17 appeals against the granting of new taxi licences to some of the 33 applicants who succeeded, on October 11 last year, out of a total of 150 applicants. The licences were granted by the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr J. S. Hayward). Mr Brockett said the appellants had . . spread their fire far and wide amongst the respondents hoping to hit one.” Greenlow’s appeal was against 22 respondents. Appearing for Greenlow, Mr Beadel said he adopted submissions previously made by other counsel. He further submitted that the judgment of the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority was wrong in that no consideration had been given to the length of service of the various applicants for licences. The authorities and the act recognised that service in the industry was a factor that could be taken into account. Greenlow had been engaged in the transport industry for 13 years, Mr Beadel said. Length Of Service

Counsel for the various respondents made counter-sub-missions. Most opposed the suggestion that appellants’ length of service was of sufficient importance to upset the decision of the Licensing Authority.

' Several counsel—including I Mr Brockett—pointed out that there had been no specific evidence against their clients. Mr A. Hearn, for D. J. Fisher, respondent, said that the lack of specific evidence in Mr Beadel’s submissions was not in line with the usual form of an appeal, and was more like an application for rehearing. Other counsel made similar comments. Mr Beadel said if he had traversed each instance specifically the hearing would have lasted a fortnight. The Authority reserved his decision. Own Case A. C. Hutchinson conducted his own appeal against all respondents. He submitted that insufficient consideration had been given to length of service in the industry. In some cases, also, former drivers who had sold their licences had been granted free licences.

Counsel for respondents made brief objection to the appeal. Decision was reserved. Decision was reserved in an appeal by D. J. Thornton (Mr W. F. Brown) against D. J.

Fisher (Mr A. Hearn) and W. Gorter (Mr J. A. Bretherton). Mr Brown said that the appellant had long driving experience in the industry. Fisher had less experience, and Gorter had not had the six years’ part-time experience of the appellant. Mr Bretherton said Gorter had at least the same full-time experience and was strong financially. Mr Hearn said that Fisher had three years’ parttime experience and was financially strong.

“Out Of Touch” Decision was also reserved iin an appeal by L. A. Reese (Mr J. A. Bretherton) against J. Dunn, D. J. Fisher, M. H. i Loughlin and J. C. Wilson. Mr Bretherton suggested Dunn had been out of the industry for some time and was out of touch with it. Loughlin had no previous experience, I Fisher had done no full-tmei driving and Wilson had not been concerned with the industry for 10 years. Mr B. S. McLaughlin for Dunn said that of all the applicants Reese probably had the least driving experience. Mr Hearn for Fisher made a similar submission. There was nothin” to show the Licensing Authority’s decision should be altered. For Wilson, Mr B. J. Drake said there could be merit in bringing back an “old hand.” Mr G. T. Mahon objected to the appeal on the behalf of Mr W. F. Brown, for Loughlin. Mr Brown later added brief comments. “Demonstrably Wrong” K. B. Steel (Mr G. T. Mahon) appealed against licences being granted to 14 respondents. Mr Mahon submitted that the Authority was demonstrably wrong in preferring respondents to Steel, for Steel was better qualified to carry on the service because of his previous experience and financial position. Decision was reserved after counter-submissions had been made for the respondents. Appeal Opposed Decision was also reserved in an appeal by J. L. Elliot (Mr R. G. Blunt) against the granting of licences to 24 respondents. Counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal. Mr Blunt said there were some glaring examples of wrong decisions on the part of the No) 9 Authority. These comments were attacked by Mr B. J. Drake, who pointed out the difficult task that had faced the Authority.

Other counsel described Mr Blunt’s remarks as “extravagant” and going rather too far.

Mr Blunt said that he might have been properly criticised for attacking the Authority; he had not done it lightly but after careful consideration of evidence in the decisions.

He felt the Appeal Authority would find the remarks justified. He felt insufficient attention had been paid to the previous experience of applicants. His remarks had not applied solely to Elliot’s case. Concluded The appeals of C. M. Fossey, S. J. Hall and R. M. Moffat, which had been almost completed on Wednesday, were concluded yesterday morning. The Appeal Authority reserved his decision in each case. Refused The application by G. T. Caulfield for reinstatement of his appeal, which had earlier been struck out, was refused. Caulfield said he had not poked up the notice of the hearings until yesterday, when he visited the post office.

At the end of yesterday’s hearing three appeals remained to be heard. They will be dealt with this morning.