La rrow bid refused
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
continued from page 23 Mr. Muir would have regard under Section 174(4)(b) to the record of Davis Bros. (Haulage) Ltd., C. Bristow Ltd., and Thomas Potter Priestley Ltd. when considering their client's application since Mr. Sammy Davis was formerly a director of those companies and was now a director of Larrow.
On September 5 Raymond Davis and Co. requested an adjournment of the original hearing arranged for September 25-26.
Into court
The applications eventually came to court on October 24. They had been published as applications for new licences; if the licences were granted, existing licences held by companies in the Davis Group would be surrendered. The unusual course of publishing the applications as for new licences instead of applications as made to expire on the expiry date of existing licences was taken in an effort to get the applications off the ground.
The applicant company had from April onwards tried to persuade Mr. Muir to grant short-term licences without publication. He did not see sufficient reason to grant these requests, nor could he publish the full term applications as they had been received. "I was, however, anxious", says Mr. Muir, "to give the applicant company every chance to establish their case as quickly as possible since delay could only be to their disadvantage."
"All parties were as anxious as I was to find some method of escape from the technicalities", says Mr. Muir, "and it was finally agreed that the public inquiry could proceed provided the applicants immediately re-applied for new full term licences. If these applications produced no additional objectors it was accepted that any grant that might be made on the basis of evidence tendered at the public inquiry would be treated as a grant made under the new applications."
Fresh applications were received on October 24 and were subsequently published.
Mr. Muir then comments on the customer witnesses, only two of whose evidence seemed to him to give worthwhile support to the application.
"A major difficulty in dealing with the applications," says Mr. Muir, "is that the documentation produced by the applicant company is defective, inadequate and of very little help either to them or to me. There is no customer analysis of the work done in 1966 and 1967 by the Davis Group vehicles. Then at the beginning of 1968 we come to the only firm ground in the surrounding morass."
Of the 11 main customers only Esso Petroleum sent a representative to support the application. Only three, Bowaters United Kingdom Paper Company Ltd., Purfleet Deep Wharf and Storage Co. Ltd., and Lancashire Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd., wrote letters of support "and these in the most general terms."
Dealing with the period from May 1 onwards when all the operations of the ex-Davis Group vehicles were carried on without a licence the only guide to their activities, says Mr. Muir, is to be found in the admissions of the witnesses and in the document supplied at a late stage of the public inquiry in response to requests from the objectors. This document which the applicant company had two months to prepare was produced uncertified on the morning of the resumed inquiry in manuscript form. It purports to show the earnings of the applicant company (1) during 1967; (2) from January 1 1968 to May 10 1968; and (3) from May 11 1968 until September 30 1968. It also provides a list of customers, the dates on which the customers were acquired, when they became customers of the Davis Group, the type of goods carried and the places between which the goods were carried. If it had been properly filled in and certified to be correct Mr. Muir comments, it would have shown to what extent ex-Davis Group vehicles were supplying the needs of Larrow customers old and new within and without the normal user declared by the latter company. It was, however, obviously prepared at the last minute and "even by the most charitable standards" was valueless.
"The disappearance from the transport scene of 336 vehicles and 251 trailers on the licence from Davis Group companies", says Mr. Muir, "should have left a sizeable gap. The onus was on the applicant company to show that the gap was such that at least 108 vehicles and 69 trailers were required to fill it. This they have sought to do by bringing the customer support to which I have referred and, under pressure, some account of the recent activities of Larrow Transport much of which, for what it is worth, related to operations outside the normal user of that company, based as it is at Newcastle-on-Tyne.
"I have come to the conclusion that no case has been made for a grant and I am therefore not obliged to deal with matters under Section 174(4Xb) to consideration of which most of the public inquiry was devoted. I ought however to make a brief reference to them."
In this reference Mr. Muir says that the applicant in this case, for all practical purposes, was Mr. Sammy Davis. Mr. Davis had been a director of a number of Davis Group haulage companies which had been liquidated and which were in no position to satisfy the debenture holder. "In reply to questions put to him on these matters he gave evasive replies. He had, it appeared, been deserted by his accountant who had prepared statements of accounts but had not appended his signature to them. Mr. Yorke asks me to say that the conduct of Mr.
Davis is such that by Section 174(4)(b) the company of which he is a director should not be granted a licence. My jurisdiction is a limited one and I doubt whether I would be acting within that limited jurisdiction if I were to say that Mr. Davis' conduct (reprehensible as it may have been) relates to his conduct specifically in his capacity as a carrier of goods.
"Mr. Davis", he continues, "has apparently and admittedly been carrying on business as Larrow Transport (Northern) Ltd., using many vehicles which are not licensed under that company's licence nor any other. He has in fact been operating under no other flag than the Jolly Roger.
"His excuse is that he thought that at the meeting which my clerk had with his advisers on April 23 authority had been given to operate in advance of the issue of short term licences for which he had applied.
"The facts, however, are that no short term licences could possibly have been promised before the applications were received, that when they were received they were found to be defective in several respects and the supporting customer demand for the services of the vehicles, claiming that there was urgent need, was insufficient to justify a grant under Section 173(1Xd). Even if Mr. Davis misunderstood what was said to him by his advisers about what passed at the meeting on April 23 his misunderstanding cannot have lasted for more than a few days. No short term licences were forthcoming in response to his applications and no fees were paid. There is not the slightest doubt that Mr. Davis was fully aware of what he was doing. He was determined to try to preserve the continuity of his business at all costs."
On the question of vehicle maintenance Mr. Muir says: "There is a long record of inadequacy in terms of GV9s, which I need not particularise. I have in a previous decision expressed the opinion that this huge business has been built up, vehicles bought, and new customers acquired without thought to the inadequate premises at which the vehicles would be maintained. Too late the premises at Warley were acquired and they have now gone. Now I am told that there is nothing but a tenuous hold in Wapping High Street and a prospect of premises in Essex.
"I have also been asked to refuse this application," he says, "because the applicant did not honour his obligation to produce documents which he had promised to produce. Conduct of this sort is regrettably typical of Mr. Sammy Davis. Many from time to time have testified that he gives a good service to his customers, but beyond that in my view he sees no other obligation.
"My conclusion therefore is that the application ought to be refused primarily because I am not satisfied as to the need to licence the vehicles applied for and additionally because of the conduct of Mr. Davis as a director of companies engaged in the carriage of goods."
It is understood that an appeal is under consideration by the applicant.