LICENCES FOR RENTAL CARS

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26745, 31 May 1952, Page 2

LICENCES FOR RENTAL CARS

BLENHEIM APPEAL UPHELD

JUDGE’S ADVICE TO AUTHORITIES

Licensing authorities should not hesitate when necessary to adjourn an application so that other applicants or persons who wished to apply for licences could be heard on equal terms, said the Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer) in a decision given recently. Licensing authorities, he added, should take care to ensure that no suggestion of injustice could be directed against their administration. The case being considered was an appeal by Blenheim City Markets, Ltd. (Mr J. S. Haywood) and the Commissioner of Transport (Mr R. T. Dixon) against decisions of the No. 8 Transport Licensing Authority, granting a licence for three rental cars to M. W. Wisheart (Mr A. C. Natham) as trustee tor a company to be formed, and a licence for one rental car to I. A. Neal (Mr A. M. Gascoigne). The decision said that the appellant company had lodged a pro forma appeal. and on its representations the commissioner had als,o filed an appeal. The company had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a rental car licence in Blenheim for many years, and the grant of licences to the respondents might prejudice a subsequent application by the company. Judge Archer said that the commissioner appealed to enable the Appeal Authority to review the decisions on the grounds complained of by the appellant company and on the ground that it was desirable in the interests of justice for the decision to be reviewed. “It follows that this appellant was directly interested in the applications, and under section 101 of the Transport Act, 1949, was entitled to be heard, as it was heard, at the hearing before the No. 8 Authority,” he added. “I think that a person directly interested in and entitled to be heard upon an application ought to be entitled to appeal against a decision prejudicial to his interests. It is to be regretted that section 144 of the act, which defines the persons entitled to appeal, does not confer that right on Blenheim City Markets. Ltd., in the circumstances of this case.”

"Reasonable Request” Justice was not necessarily done merely by permitting an intending applicant to be heard, as was done in the present case, Judge Archer said. The appellant company’s reasonable request was to have its application heard at the same time as the applications of the respondents, and not to be prejudiced by the grant of licences to the respondents. "I do not agree that the appellant company has been guilty of neglect or lack of vision, or that the respondents are entitled to priority because of their foresight and initiative," he said. “Their applications differ only in detail from that of the appellant company and the same issues are involved in all three applications. These issues are whether there should be further rental licences in the Blenheim district and, if so, who should have them. On these issues it is reasonable for the appellant to ask that his pending application should be considered on its merits along with those of the respondents.

“To enable this to be done the commissioner’s appeal will be allowed and both applications referred back for rehearing in conjunction with the application filed by the appellant company.” he said. Judge Archer noted that counsel for the applicant Wisheart was unwilling to disclose t'.e names of the shareholders and other information concerning his proposed company. “I think these matters were highly relevant to the merits of the application,” he said. “The information should accordingly have been disclosed, and might properly have been the subject of cross-examination.” ,