AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Disqualified directors licensed as partners

30th October 1997
Page 8
Page 8, 30th October 1997 — Disqualified directors licensed as partners
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?

by Mike Jewell II A couple who were disqualified from becoming company directors after their haulage business collapsed have been given a new Operator's Licence after making their application as a partnership.

The apparent loophole in the law which allows disqualified directors to go back into business was illustrated by a case that came before North Western Traffic Commissioner Keith Waterworth last week.

Derbyshire haulier Joseph Laban was disqualified for six years and his wife Jillian for three from managing a company in May of this year by Nottingham County Court.

The disqualification orders followed the liquidation of JW Laban Haulage in 1993. But last week Waterworth granted their application for a new international licence for five vehicles and two trailers, trading as Labans Transport from Melbourne, Derby.

The Commissioner said that he did so with some hesitation, but he took account of the fact that chartered accountants had written to say for four years the Labans had run Blackwell Transport (Melbourne) in a proper and orderly manner until that company ceased to trade following their disqualification. There was no objection from the Road Haulage or Freight Transport Associations.

Waterworth added that now they are not "hiding behind the skirts of a limited company" it is their own money at risk.

Earlier, Waterworth had pointed out that the agreed facts at the county court were that Joseph Laban had allowed JW Laban Haulage to trade at a time when he ought to have known it could not meet its debts.

He had allowed cheques to be issued when he should have known there were no funds to cover them; he had run a company loan account for his own benefit; he sold an asset he had misappropriated; and he had failed to make proper returns.

Laban said he disagreed with the facts but he had been advised that he could not afford to fight the case.


comments powered by Disqus