Business Transfer Disputed on Appeal
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE London and North Eastern 1 Railway Co. successfully appealed, at York last week, against the grant by the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority (Sir William Hart) of an A licence to an operator who was stated to have sold his coal business for £25 to his wife, so that he could apply for an A licence, The respondent was Mr. Thomas Hagan, St. James Street, Doncaster.
Mr. B. de H. Pereira, for the appellant, contended that there had been an attempt to avoid the relevant sections of the Road and Rail Traffic Act regarding a B licence, that the sale of the husband's coal business to the wife, to enable him to devote himself entirely to his haulage business, was fictitious, and that the coal business was still his.
After Mrs. Olive Evelyn Hagan had given evidence as to the payment of 25 by herself to her husband for the coal business, Mr. Rowand Hark.er, K.C., chairman, asked her whether the coal undertaking was transferred deliberately to enable her husband to epply for an A licence, so that he could carry the coal sold in her .business and transport goods for other persons. Mrs. Hagan replied that this was so. She said that her husband's principal customers, as a haulier, were a firm who had threatened to take away the traffic if he did not obtain an A licence.
Mr. Pereira submitted that the price paid for the coal business did not represent its true value, and argued that, even if the Deputy Licensing Authority had come to the conclusion that it was a genuine sale, he was wrong in granting an A licence, as Mr. Hagan did not fulfil the requirements regarding the basic year.
Mr. E. Ould, for the respondent, submitted that it was legitimate for a person to endeavour to adjust his business so that he could operate it profitably, despite the provisions of the Act. Mr. Hagan had effectively parted with the coal business, and general haulage was his main occupation. There had been no attempt to deceive the court. Before it retired to consider its decision, the chairman said that the Tribunal would like Mr. Ould to give a considered reply to the following question: "Do you ask us to give a decision On whether the alleged transfer by Mr. Hagan of his coal business to his wife was a genuine transaction, whereby Mr. Hagan divested himself of all interest in the business and transferred it to Mrs. Hagan, and that, after that transfer, the coal business was, and still is, being carried on by Mrs. Hagan as a business separate from the haulage business carried on by Mr. Hagan? "
Mr. Ould : "That is part of my case, and I should ask you to do so."
Announcing its decision, the chairman said that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the transaction concerning the coal business was genuine, and that the business was carried on separately by Mrs. Hagan.
On the other questions, the Tribunal was of opinion that, whilst there were persons ready and willing to employ Mr. Hagan, there was not sufficient evidence to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a prima facie case.