AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Can Offences by an Individual be Held Against a Company ?

27th January 1961
Page 34
Page 34, 27th January 1961 — Can Offences by an Individual be Held Against a Company ?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

CAN offences committed before the formation of a limited company be taken into account in revocation or suspension proceedings against the company before a Licensing Authority?

This point was argued at Newcastle last Friday when Wilfred White's Transport Services, Ltd., Tow Law, were called before the Northern Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, to show cause why their licences should not he revoked or suspended, following an overloading offence and the issue of a prohibition order.

After Mr. Hanlon had said he proposed to take into account offences concerning inefficient brakes, failure to keep records, and excessive, weight, recorded against Mr. Wilfred White, a director of the company, between 1932 and 1958, before the company came into existence, Mr. I. Robey, for the company, submited that legally this could not be done.

The Licensing Authority was concerned only with the holder of the licence, in this case the company, and not with its servants except during the currency of the licence. The only two matters that should be considered were the offences committed since the company's formation on December 1, 1959.

The overloading offence, for which they were fined £4 by Newcastle magistrates on June I, concerned the carriage of sheets of veneer from Wallsend to , Scotland, when additional sheets had been loaded without the management's knowledge, the excess weight being I tort I cwt. The weight of the vehicle, an elderly four-wheeled A.E.C., rather than the load. was responsible—many modern lightweight four-wheelers carried a bigger payload than the one that caused the trouble.

The matters connected with the prohibition order were comparatively trifling and had been put right immediately.

Mr. Hanlon replied that in his view it was essential to take into account the previous history of a director actively concerned in the management of the company, in considering whether the offences were wilful. In the present case he considered the circumstances justified a severe caution.

An associated company, Cable Bros: (Haulage), Ltd., also before the Licensing Authority for an overloading offence. were similarly cautioned.

Tags

People: I. Robey, T. Hanlon
Locations: Newcastle

comments powered by Disqus