Business Lapses : Successor (( Newcomer ?
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• riECIS1ON was reserved by the I.-or Appeal Tribunal, at Carlisle, when Modern Haulage Services,. Ltd., 36, Lowther Street, Carlisle, appealed against the refusal of an A licence and B licence by the Northern Licensing Authority.
It was stated that the company, originally run by two directors, had found itself in financial straits and it was decided to wind, it up. For a period of seven months no bus,iness was done, and then the concern was taken over by Mr. William Nixon, of Haltwhistle, who held 99 per cent, of the shares, and his father, who held 1 per cent The business was then carried on under the same title and with the same vehicles.
When the licences came up for renewal, the railways objected on the grounds that the business had lapsed and that the appellant had to be regarded as a newcother.• This view was upheld by the Licensing Authority.
Mr. T. H. Campbell 'Wardlaw; for the appellant, pointed out that the • licences -had been held by the same company all the time. He maintained that the tact Of the company's getting into financial difficulties, .being taken over •under new management and retrieving its financial status was no reason for withholding the licences.
Mr. P. Kershaw, 'for the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies, contended that the suspension of business was not due to temporary fluctuation, and that, during the seven months, traffic was transferred to other hauliers.
Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., chairman, pointed out that it was not, in his opinion, a matter of how long the business ceased, but of why.
Mr. Kershaw showed that hauliers
• might be affected by trouble at the source of their supply of traffic. In such a case, the haulier could return to business when the disturbance had been settled. In this instance, circumstances were different—the business
had passed into other hands.