TRANSPORT APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 13 September 1933, Page 6

TRANSPORT APPEAL

RAILWAY BOARD UPHELD. JUDGE OSIER’S DECISION. (Per Pi ess Association — Copyright .) WELLINGTON, September 12. Whether a- Transport District Licensing Authority, when it considers an application for the. renewal of a license, can simply grant or refuse the application, or whether, it can add terms and conditions without giving notice of the licensee, was an important point raised in a c-ase which came before.His-.Honour, Mr Justice Ostler, in the Supreme Court to-day. The case -also raised the question of jurisdiction of the Transport Appeal Board.

Hodson’s Pioneer Motor Services, Ltd., service car proprietors, Wanganui, were the plaintiffs and members of the No 5 Transport District Licensing Authority and’the Transport Appeal Board were the defendants. Judge Ostler delivering judgment, said he could see iio difficulty in determining that the Government Railways Board had power to appeal to ..the Transport Appeal Board to modify the decision of the District Licensing Authority, by cutting down the number of daily • trips allowed by the license. Such' appeal , in liis - opinion, was authorised by the Act ,aud that being so, it seemed to him that the. action so far as the Transport Appeal Board - was concerned, must -fail. It seemed that that really disposed of the plaintiff company-’s other, complaint. His Honour said: “In my opinion the. District. Licensing authority had jurisdiction jn renewing a service license, to _ modify th e ; .terms'- and‘conditions upon 'which such license ys& originally granted. The matter is not as clear .as it might be, but, in my, opTiiipxi,tlie intention' of the legislature in this respect sufficiently apoears. It is quite clear that a District Licensing.... Authority;... has the power to impose conditions when originally granting a license. It is also clear that; after the original 11 9ense has been granted, and while it is still current the District Licensing Authorty has the power either to amend or revoke any of its terms orconditions, which, in its opinion, are necessary in the public interests. That being so, in my opinion, the action fails. It seems to me that, the District Licensing Authority, in considering whether it should grant a- renewal, or how ,it sliofild alter its terms,, has- acted in a. judicial capacity, and therefore, if it proposes to make -any alteration which is not' discussed at the meeting at which objections ,are being heard, it will always b© wise to give the parties affected notice to any alterations that it proposed to . make on. its own motion, and allowing the other party the opportunity of being heard, if he objects.”