1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204 
Licence lost for fly-tipping
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to good repute — and a plea of directors' ignorance certainly didn't impress the Transport Tribunal...
THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL has upheld the revocation of the four-vehicle licence held by Harlow-based Muck It, and the disqualification of the company and its directors from holding an 0-licence.The company's transport manager, John Huke, had allegedly been involved in fly tipping but the company had been allowed to continue trading pending an appeal (CM14 October 2004).
Lost repute
At the original hearing Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms had held that repute of the company and Huke had been lost. In addition to revoking the licence, he disqualified the company and its directors, Hazel and Hayley Merritt, from holding or obtaining an 0-licence in any traffic area for five years.
Paul Lockyer, an Environment Agency enforcement officer, had given evidence about fly tipping involving vehicles operated by various companies that Huke was associated with; namely Abbey Excavations, Bradshaw Tipper Hire, County Services. J&H Skip Hire and Muck It.
Jeremy Fear, appearing for the company and its directors, told the Tribunal that the TC had been wrong in not allowing Huke to represent the company. He said that ill luke had represented the company he might well have said that the directors knew nothing about the company's activities, The TC had barred Huke from giving evidence as he was not a director of the company Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said when considering repute the burden of proof remained with the operator.
It was for the operator to satisfy the TC that he met that requirement.
The Tribunal agreed that the TC should have allowed Huke to represent the company. However,Huke was ready and able to meet the case against him in regard to repute. which was identical to that against the company.
Indeed, as the TC found. Fluke controlled the company's activities. The Tribunal was satisfied that the refusal to permit Huke to represent the company made no difference to the overall result.
Same orders
The suggestion that the directors knew nothing of the company's activities was the best that could have been said in their favour —Tribunal members were satisfied that the TC would still have made the same orders.
As the TC had noted, this was a particularly bad case. The directors had stood aside while John Huke manipulated the company, its vehicles and its 0-licence to his Own advantage especially in evading thOse wh'o.were charged with enforcing the law governing the illegal disposal of waste. •