Test case decision for charter buses

Press, 25 February 1981, Page 4

Test case decision for charter buses

Leopard Coachlines, Ltd was entitled under it licence to take two bus-load, lot rugby players and sup porters from New Brighten ■ to Blenheim and return, M Justice Casey ruled in a tes case decision given in thi High Court yesterday. The decision could hav< far-reaching consequence! for the operation of chartei buses. His Honour awardee costs of $75 against the Ministry of Transport. In a reserved decision ir May. 1980, Judge McAloor in the District Court foune that Leopard Coachlines hat breached its passenger ser vice licence by taking four New Brighton Rugby Clut teams and supporters to Blenheim and back. Because he regarded the charge to be a test case Judge McAloon discharged the company without conviction under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act. Yesterday in the High Court Leopard Coachlines appealed against the decision of Judge McAloon in finding the charge proved. The appeal was upheld and the District Court decision was

quashed. Mr D. H.. Hicks appeared for the company, and Mr B. M. Stanaway for the Ministry of Transport. The case was argued on the interpretation of the) word “depot” in the Trans-) port Licensing Regulation,! 1963. t Leopard Coachlines oper-j ates a daily service between; Glentunnel and Christchurch) via Darfield where it has its i main depot. It also has a depot at Sandyford Street, Svdenham.

Under Regulation 30 (1) of the Transport Licensing Regulations it is a condition of every licence for a passenger service over a defined route that the operator can take contract or charter parties from any point within a radius of 10 miles of a depot for its vehicles to any other part of New Zealand. It was held by Judge McAloon that the company was in breach of that regulation by taking a party from New Brighton when its denot was at Darfield. Mr Justice Casey ruled yesterday that as the company had a depot, within the meaning of the regulations at Sandyford Street, which was within a 10-mile radius of the pick-up point at New! Brighton, Leopard Coachlines had not breached the regulation. At the defended hearing in the District Court on April

I,; 17, 1980, Traffic Officer L sIR. Turner, of the Ministry o s! Transport, gave evidenci i-jthat on August 17, 1979 a about 1.15 p.m. he was ir rißawhiti Avenue. New Brigh titon. when he saw two buse: e of Leopard Coachlines beinj loaded with passengers an< e luggage. K s The driver of one bus. Mi r I. W. Early, who is a direct j or and major shareholder ir e the bus company, told him thev were going to Blenheim t for’the week-end, Mr Turnei i said. I Giving his decision on the I appeal his Honour said that J evidence had been given that r) Leopard Coachlines had beer jl operating 26 buses at the jltime, and not infrequently iihe bus which operated the ;; Glentunnel-Christchurch serjlvice in the morning was not jlthe same one which did the .■return trip in the afternoon. The District Court iudf’f ihad taken the ,yiew that it it was only a matter of cenijvenience for the company II that the Sandyford Stree’ ;; premises were maintained Hand that their existence had i nothing to do with the oper|ation of the particular liicence which could be done [without premises in Christchurch. i “I have difficulty in [accepting this conclusion,” I Mr Justice Casey said. “This j is obviously a company in a; j fairly substantial way of) [business and one would) imagine that economic and) practical consideration! would determine the deci-l sion of the management in I the way that their service) was operated and the prenr-i ises. they found necessary! for the storage and running) of its buses.” . ■ ■ The fact that it might be I

.lconvenient for the companv fto operate one or more 1 denot was simply one o f , the facts which had to be H taken into account in deciding whether the premises ;)were a depot in the terms of lithe regulations. I As Mr Hicks had pointed out to the District Court 'judge, the regulation referred to a depot and obliviously its terms had not confined the restriction to one single depot. It was also significant that the regulation, referred to a place in which the veihicle was usually kept when not in use, therefore meaning something different front ithe principal place or places iin which a company carried )nn its business. Mr Justice [Casey said. ; It was held by his Honour I that the decision of Mr Justice Henry in the case of ; Jenkins Motors. Ltd. v. the Transport Department, - did i not apply in this case. Mr Justice. Casey found that Leopard Coachlines bad ; brought itself within the [word “depot" as defined ir [the regulations in respect of its Sandyford Street premises. “The operation at Sandyford Street, Christchurch’ is not simnly the use of m-.w. ises where buses which come from Darfield mav. wait for the time of their return trip. It appears on the evidence, which is' uncontradicted. to be an integral part of a large operation for the use of buses which can be changed depending on the requirements of the run,” he said. “From the evidence, on any normal meaning of the word, this would clearly be described as a depot.”