MAIL CONTRACT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 151, 12 April 1950, Page 6

MAIL CONTRACT

RIGHT TO TRANSPORT LICENCE JUDGE ARCHER ALLOWS APPEAL (P.A.) WELLINGTON, April 11. A decision of importance to the Post and Telegraph Department and to mail contractors throughout the country has been givgn by the Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer). He has allowed the appeal of W. A. Kenny, of Picton, iigainst a decision given .by the No. 5 Transport Licensing Authority last December. Kenny, now a grocer with a light truck, was formerly a licensed transport operator, but sold liis business in •1948.. When the contract for the conveyance of mails at Picton expired at the end of last September, the Post Office called tenders. Kenny’s price of £3lO a year was the lowest of four tenders. The previous holders of the contract, Walter Todd and Company, submitted a price of £425, compared with a price of £255 for which they had done the work in the previous year.

Kenny was given the contract, hut when he sought a transport operator’s licence to enable him to carry out the contract his application was opposed by Walter Todd and Company and by the Transport Alliance and was refused.

Judge Archer, in allowing Kenny’s appeal, said that the difference between the two tenders was substantial. He added: “I think that very strong grounds must he established before I can he justified in holding it to be in the public interest for mo to refuse a licence to the appellant for the apparent purposes of forcing the department to pay an additional £lls for the service it requires.” Judge Archer disagreed with the submission of those objecting to Kenny’s licence that a mail contract was primarily the right of a licensed operator, and said that the right of licensed carriers to secure such contracts depended on their tenders being reasonable in comparison with the tenders of others. Those who had held mail contracts could not look to the licensing authority to protect their interests in the matter of a renewal. '

“If a tenderer is able by his own efforts to make a contract payable at a lower price than that of a competitor who has to employ labour, I see no reason why his price for that reason should be deemed uneconomic or why he should he charged with unfair competition,” concluded Judge Archer.