Davis Group vehicle transfer challenged
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A strong attack was launched against a document relating to the sale of a Davis Group company, by counsel representing the Anglo-Israel Bank before the Metropolitan LA Mr. D. I. R. Muir, in London on Wednesday.
Mr. Muir was conducting a resumed hearing of an application by Chesford Haulage Ltd.. of London, El, to take over vehicles previously operated by Charles Poulter Ltd, also of London, El, a member of the Davis Group.
An earlier hearing (CM September 19) had been adjourned to enable Mr. Joseph Young, a director and the company's accountant, to attend and to give evidence.
On Wednesday the whole of the morning was occupied with consideration of a legal point raised by Mr. A. Garfitt, for Chesford. He maintained that the National Freight Corporation (British Road Services), represented by Mr. R. M. Yorke, had no right to pursue inquiries beyond their locus as an objector.
Before adjourning for lunch, Mr. Muir announced that he proposed to allow Mr. Yorke to conduct cross-examination outside the strict ambit of his objection but within the scope of a letter Mr. Yorke had written on September 9. Mr. Muir said that although the method adopted by Mr. Yorke was something of a subterfuge, he did not propose, because of a legal or procedural objection, to exclude such information.
Mr. Young was cross-examined by Mr. Yorke extensively throughout most of the afternoon about his directorship of J. O'Connor Haulage Ltd., a company which had been sold in 1963 to a Davis Group concern, Bristow's. Mr. Young denied repeatedly that the O'Connor company was ever connected with the Davis Group.
He said he ceased to be a director of O'Connor in 1963 and was now proposing to re-enter haulage as a director of Chesford. Shown a document dated 1966 naming him a director of O'Connor, he said he did not know how this could be.
Mr. Young did not know how one of his co-directors of O'Connor Haulage could tell the Transport Tribunal that the company was part of the Davis Group. He denied that he either rubber-stamped everything or took no interest in the way the company was run.
When Mr. Yorke suggested that the purchase price it was proposed Chesford should pay for the Poulter business was between a third and a fifth of what the price ought to be, he agreed he was buying a bargain. He could not agree that the purchase price was so good that the company could be purchased out of its profits.
Before the hearing was adjourned until yesterday, Mr. D. Hunter, for the AngloIsrael Bank, said they were engaged in a pending action which might affect Poulter's premises. As potential creditors of Poulters they were concerned whether this was a genuine deal or not. "We viewed the application with some little suspicion as to its timing," said Mr. Hunter, "and those suspicions are by no means resolved today."
He described the purchased document produced in court as not remotely like anything he had seen before in all his life. It provided no security for the vendor [Paulien and named an utterly ridiculous purchase figure.
He said: "It is quite unlike anything we know of Mr. Solly Davis that this business should be handed by him to Mr. Young on a plate." He urged the LA to have the utmost caution about the application.
The hearing continued yesterday.