AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Operator not a ‘phoenix’ firm

30th June 2011, Page 7
30th June 2011
Page 7
Page 7, 30th June 2011 — Operator not a ‘phoenix’ firm
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?

Keywords : Taj, Law / Crime

TAJ THE GROCER is to have its O-licence application reconsidered after it successfully challenged a Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s (DTC) description of it as a “phoenix company”.

Hugh Carlisle QC, Judge of the Upper Tribunal, allowed the appeal by the Brighton firm against the decision by South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area DTC Miles Dorrington to refuse it a licence.

The appeal judge said the case should also be reheard by a different TC or deputy.

Taj The Grocer director Nazia Khan had applied for a restricted O-licence for one vehicle in November 2010. The company had purchased the vehicle and other assets of Taj Natural Foods – whose director was Khan’s husband Amir – and which had gone into administration in March 2010. At the public inquiry in March, the DTC said he believed Nazia Khan might be “fronting” the new application for her husband. “On the face of the evidence before me, this appears to be a phoenix application.” On appeal, Taj The Grocer said there was likely to be a surplus when the administration of Taj Natural Foods was complete. It argued that although Taj Natural Foods had no debt, it had supported the debts of Amir Khan’s two other companies.

The appeal judge said phrases such as “phoenix application” or “fronting” to describe companies should be used with caution.

“We emphasise that all involved were of good character, without adverse findings of any sort against them.”


comments powered by Disqus