MERGERS IN TRANSPORT

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26122, 26 May 1950, Page 8

MERGERS IN TRANSPORT

APPEAL AUTHORITY’S COMMENT RULING ON CANTERBURY APPLICATION “The substantial issue arising in these appeals is whether such merger companies are entitled to retain their privileged position indefinitely, and so to make it impossible for a new operator to enter the transport field unless he can prove inefficiency on the part of the organisation concerned,” said the Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer) in a decision on an appeal by Geraldine Transport.’ Ltd., represented by Mr J. S. Haywood, and Mid-Canter-bury Transport, Ltd., represented by Mr R. A. Young. The appeal, against a decision of the No. 3 'Transport Licensing Authority (Mr C. L. Bishop) granting a new goods-service licence to A. D. Cormack for an area covering the Geraldine County and part of the Ashburton County south of the Hinds river, was disallowed.

“The merger of a number of independent operators into large organisations has intended to promote efficiency and to eliminate the duplication of services,” said Judge Archer.

“The companies formed as a result of such mergers are entitled to the same degree of protection in the transport industry as other existing operators. They are not entitled, however, to such a degree of protection as would prevent any other suitable applicant from ever securing a licence to operate in a district where the natural growth of transport business renders additional services desirable in the public interest.” Requirements of District Later in his decision Judge Archer said: “I have perused the evidence with some care and confess to a degree of doubt, as to whether the requirements of the districts concerned are such as to call for three additional goods vehicles. It is evident that the appellant companies are rendering efficient service and give satisfaction to the majority of their clients. On the other hand, the evidence discloses a limited degree of dissatisfaction and that a fully adequate service has not been available at all times. It is also clear that the businesses of both appellant companies have been increasing, and one has recently extended its ©perations. The sum total of the evidence satisfied the No. 3 Authority that an increase in transport facilities was desirable in the public interest, and I am not entitled to disturb his decision unless I am satisfied that it is demonstrably wrong. Notwithstanding the doubt which I have mentioned. I am not prepared to so find, and these appeals are therefore disallowed.”