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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Bryan appeal is dismissed
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Disqualified director Richard Bryan has lost his appeal against the revocation of his Operator's Licence and his disqualification from holding one until June this year.
The revocation and disqualification orders against Epping-based Bryan, who held a four-vehicle licence, were made by the South Eastern & Metropolitan TC Christopher Heaps. He had been concerned about Bryan's involvement with Brymac Contractors, whose licence had been revoked and whose sole director had been disqualified.
In December 2001, Heaps refused a licence application by Brymac (London) when Bryan appeared for that company. The TC noted Bryan's links with the company, and in particular his mortgage of his property to secure loans to Brymac although he didn't seem to boa director or shareholder.
The TC had a copy of a statement of facts signed by Bryan which included admissions that, although not formally appointed he had acted as a director of Brymac Contractors; that he was unfit to be concerned in the management of a companr, that he had caused Brymac to trade to the detriment of creditors, In particular the Crown authorities; and that he had financed Brymac's trading by the retention of Crown monies and failed to deal properly with Crown departments.
In making the revocation and disqualification orders, the TC said that Bryan was disqualified from being a company director and from being involved in the management of any company until 21June 2003.
Dismissing Bryan's appeal, the Transport Tribunal said that the evidence against his repute was overwhelming. Quite apart from the matters set out by the TC, there was the fact that throughout the duration of the licence Bryan had acted as a shadow director for Brymac (London) when disqualified from doing so. This was a bad case and the finding that Bryan was unfit to hold a licence was inevitable.