1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
'A Gilbertian situation'
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WO charges could be raised by a subsidiary company for low-loader haulage work undertaken for associated companies, said Mr. E. T. Taylor, at the Transport Tribunal on Wednesday. He represented A. Gunn (Wales) Ltd., of Llysfaen, Nr. Colwyn Bay, who appealed against the refusal of a C-to-11 licence switch for a low-loader artic conditioned to carry civil engineering and road making 'plant for Associated Gunn Group companies within 60 miles.
Respondents to the appeal were Pickfords Ltd., represented by Mr. R. M. Yorke, and four private objectors, represented by Mr. G. H. P. Beames.
Mr. Taylor said that the group parent company were plant hirers based at Altrincham. They had established a number of financially autonomous subsidiary companies. The directors of the group company served as directors of the offshoot companies. Without a B licence, said , Mr. Taylor, it was not possible for the Welsh company to charge the Altrincham company or A. Gunn (Northern) Ltd. for haulage work done, though in the reverse direction charges were raised. The directors felt this to be inequitable.
Continuing, Mr. Taylor said the Welsh company was not a subsidiary in the legal sense and could not take advantage of the provisions of section 180 of the Act. The relationship was that of siblings, rather than parent and child. He thought that associated companies should not be looked at in the same light as unrelated companies.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, asked Mr. Taylor if he would define the term "associated companies" to justify carriage for firms employed on the same site. Mr. Taylor said he would not; he used the term as it was employed at the earlier hearings.
Mr. Squibb said the case seemed to amount to two brothers Gunn wearing bowler hats being unable to charge two brothers Gunn wearing deerstalkers. "Why couldn't free use of the vehicle continue", he asked, "since operations were under the full control of the Gunn brothers?" Mr. Taylor agreed that it was a Gilbertian situation and he conceded that the companies could rearrange matters to take advantage of section 180. The appeal was dismissed.