Transport Board can run country bus services

Press, 7 September 1982, Page 7

Transport Board can run country bus services

With some hesitation Mr Justice Casey has held in a reserved decision given in the High Court that the Christchurch Transport Board is legally entitled to operate bus services outside its rating district. Two bus companies, Travelfar Coaches, Ltd, of Rangiora, and Holiday Tours

and Travel, Ltd, of Christchurch, disputed the right of the Transport Licensing Authority for the No. 9 Transport district, Desmond Patrick Hogan, to be granted licenses to operate bus services to Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Southbridge. The Christchurch Transport board was cited as the second defendant. Mr A. A. P. Willy appeared for the bus companies, Mr N. W. Williamson for the Transport Licensing Authority, and Messrs J. R. Woodward and H. C. Keyte for the Transport Board. In his judgment Mr Justice Casey said that Travelfar Coaches, Ltd, and Holiday Tours and Travel, Ltd,-were interested in taking over bus services run by Midland Coachlines, . Ltd, between Christchurch and Rangiora, and Kaiapoi and Southbridge. Midland applied to the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority to transfer its licences under the Transport Act, 1962, for those routes to the Christchurch Transport Board. Travelfar Coaches objected and appeared at the hearing submitting that the transfer could not be ap- ; proved because the Transport Board had no power to operate such services or to

hold licences for them. Because of that Travelfar claimed that the Transport Board could not comply with the section of the act relating to the financial ability and the likelihood of the transferee carrying on the service satisfactorily. On May 19, 1982, the Transport Licensing Authority ruled that the Transport Board was legally able to operate the licences, continued with the hearing and reserved its decision. Travelfar and Holiday Tours now sought by way of review of proceedings a declaration that the Transport Board had no such power and they asked that the Transport Authority’s decision be quashed. Mr Williamson indicated that the authority would abide by the Court’s decision and was granted leave to withdraw.

It had been submitted by Mr Willy that the Transport Board had no power to run bus services outside its district, and that the 1926 act limited its bus routes to tramway feeder services. “I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the power to operate buses must have some relation to the passenger transport needs of the district. It could never have been Parliament’s intention to saddle Christchurch ratepayers with losses incurred in running services completely outside their area,” his Honour said. The routes covered by the

licence operate from the middle of the city and pass through highly populated suburbs, bringing to and from the. outlying centres H'e for whom the City of tchurch was a focus of metropolitan activity. The fact that passengers could be picked up outside the Transport Board district did not effect the predominant character of the routes. “In my view a better statutory definition of the Transport Board’s powers is clearly desirable taking into account its present enterprise and the realities of modern passenger transport," said his Honour. He had reached the conclusion, not without some hesitation, that the Transport Board was not limited to the operation of ancillary services for tramways and was legally entitled to operate its services outside its rating area. His Honour held that the two bus companies failed in their application but he thought that they were justified in seeking to resolve the doubts created by the board’s reliance on Section 50 for its present operations within its district and the extension which it now sought. “It may well be advised to seek a clearer statutory definition of its functions and powers. For this reason I make no order for • costs against the bus companies in favour of the board,” his Honour concluded.