Monday, 23 December 2019

James Thomson of Ellerthwaite
























Thomas Sowler 



The following notice of Mr. Thomas Sowler, from the pen of the president of the Chetham society, appeared in the Manchester Courier of 28th November 1857.


"The late Mr. Sowler was too remarkable a man to be allowed to pass to the silent grave without any notice except in the brief columns of an obituary. As the successful founder and establisher of a journal which has now continued for upwards of thirty years a leading organ of the great conservative party, and as the father of the book trade in Manchester, he deserves a record amongst the worthies of his native city, in which no one was more generally known or more sincerely liked and respected. His father, Mr. Thomas Sowler, carried on business as a printer, in Manchester, in partnership with Mr. Samuel Russel, under the firm of 'Sowler and Russel,' and many publications issued from their press, some of a more ephemeral, and others of more important nature; amongst the latter of which may be numbered a large Bible, and a rather voluminous History of the late War. Thomas Sowler, the son, whose mother's maiden name was Mary Ainsworth, was born in Deansgate, Manchester, on the 2nd July 1789. He was sent in due time to the grammar school, over which Mr. Lawson then presided, and he ever afterwards entertained a sincere respect for that distinguished preceptor and the time-honoured institution of which he was the governing spirit. Few have taken more interest in those pleasant meetings, the Grammar school dinners, which bring together the 'old familiar faces,' and the memories of early days, than Mr. Sowler always did. From thence he was removed to a school kept by Mr. Stolterfurth, at Chester, and whilst he remained there he attracted the notice of Dr. Majendie, who was then bishop of Chester. On leaving school he was placed in the very extensive establishment founded by the energy of Mr. James Lackington, whose autobiography most of our readers will be acquainted with, in Finsbury square, then carried on under the appropriate name of 'The Temple of the Muses,' by Messrs. Lackington, AUen and Co. We well recollect a visit paid to that 'monster' bookselling establishment in our early days, and certainly 'the trade,' with all the appliances and enterprise of this period of progress, have nothing in the great metropolis so imposing as the first entrance into that gigantic book 'temple ' presented to a stranger. In 1814 Mr. Sowler came down to establish himself in his native town. On S. Thomas's day in the same year he married Helen, daughter of Mr. John Slack of Manchester, historical engraver, to whom he was most sincerely attached, and in memory of whom he put up a very handsome memorial compartment in the east window of S. Andrew's church.
His industry, perseverance and systematic habits ensured him success, and for
many years he devoted himself to the various branches of his business with an increasing measure of prosperity. In 1825, the great want of an organ to express the opinions of the conservative party in Manchester, induced him to try what might well appear a bold experiment. The Manchester Guardian, which had been five years in progress, and was acquiring great influence and a very extensive circulation from the support given to it, originally by the radical and afterwards by the whig party, and the ability and power with which it was edited, seemed to render necessary some more able and vigorous exponent of constitutional principles in church and state than could be met with in the Manchester tory journals of the day, conducted altogether on the old system, and with little regard to the increasing requirements of the times, and those caused by the formidable local competitor which had appeared in the arena. Accordingly, on the 1st January 1825, the first number of the Manchester Courier appeared, the proprietor being Mr. Sowler, and the first editor Mr. A. A. Watts, a writer of ready talent, but who will be remembered rather from his pleasing poetry than his prose contributions to periodical literature. From the commencement of the Courier to his dying day Mr. Sowler neither changed his own principles nor the principles of his paper :

'Unpractised he to fawn or seek for power
By doctrines fashioned to the varying hour.'

Whether the fortunes of his party were under cloud or sunshine his adherence was equally firm, and it is truly gratifying to know that he had his reward in seeing his paper attain a position and acquire a degree of success far transcending any expectations he could originally have formed. To this success it is scarcely necessary to say how much, in the earlier part of its career, his sound judgment and constant attention to the various details which, taken in the aggregate, exercise such influence upon the destiny of a newspaper, must be admitted to have contributed. For some years past he did not take any active part in management of the Courier in any of its departments. But it was not by the establishment of the Courier alone that Mr. Sowler promoted the interests of the conservative party. His personal efforts and labours might always be relied upon, and those who remember the South Lancashire Conservative association, and the various county and borough contests in which he took so active a share, cannot fail to appreciate his claims to the grateful respect of the party with which he was associated.

Within the last two or three years his health had evidently been declining, and the loss of a favourite daughter, under peculiarly painful circumstances, had inflicted a severe blow upon his nervous system, which accelerated the progress of disease. It became obvious to his friends a short time ago that he was gradually sinking, but the conclusion was nearer than had been anticipated. On Wednesday morning week, while a medical friend was making a call at his house, at Bowdon, Mr. Sowler was taken suddenly worse, and almost immediately, on being assisted upstairs to his bedroom, expired, apparently without a struggle.

After what has been said it is almost needless to observe that Mr. Sowler was a sound conservative in politics, and a sincere member of the established church, attentive to its ordinances, and fully embued with the enlarged Christian spirit and feeling which it inculcates and promotes. Perhaps a kinder man never lived. A hundred instances might be produced of his readiness to assist and relieve others, but it is surely superfluous in a community where he was so well known, and where his character was so thoroughly understood. Friendly, social, and companionable, he possessed the art of attaching others to himself in an eminent degree, and when you saw him at the head of his own table he seemed the very impersonation of liberal and genial hospitality. No wonder that such a man should be popular, and few men have been more so among his townsmen, or that he should be looked up to, as he was, with fond affection by every member of his family. His knowledge of Manchester and Manchester men was unsurpassed, and it is lamentable to think how many a pleasant anecdote and striking sketch of character, which has called forth many a burst of merriment, will die with him. He was, in fact, one of the few remaining links which connected the new generation in Manchester with the old, with the pupils of Lawson, with the members of the Pitt club, with the more homely but perhaps not less enjoyable days — when mayor and corporation were in the womb of time — when the 'boroughreeve' was a reverential title, and the office of churchwarden remained intact 'in full-blown dignity.' Change, however, as it will, and expand as it must, this gx-and commercial emporium will not soon see amongst its sons a more estimable man than him we are now commemorating, and whose life may supply no unimportant moral as to the valuable results of consistent principle, sterling integrity, and kindly, social feeling. For, without concealing at any time his conscientious convictions, which no one gave expression to more openly, or truckling to the opinions of others ; and with all the necessities of difference which party conflict inevitably entailed, and no one more actively sought to promote the interests of his party ; and in the prominent situation for more than thirty years of his life of proprietor of a leading political journal, and affording, as such, a mark for jealousy and irritability to fasten upon ; he has now passed away from amongst us, not only without leaving an enemy, but without even one discordant sound to mar the universal sentiment of sympathy, respect and regret.

It may be added that the father of this scholar, came originally from Durham. Amongst the publications which issued from the press of Sowler and Russel was the great folio Bible, edited and annotated by the rev. Mr. Osterwald of Neufchatel. This work is beautifully and profusely illustrated by line engravings, most of them designed and engraved by Mr. John Slack, whose daughter Helen became the wife of this scholar. They published also, in folio, a largo Prayer Book, and Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress. These works were issued in numbers, and travellers went through the north of England canvassing for subscribers. Their trade increased so much that the old wooden presses, then in general use, were insufficient to supply the demand, and Thomas Sowler, senior, was the first

man to introduce iron presses into Manchester and the north. Their introduction cost him his life, for in assisting to remove one of them he met with an injury, from the effects of which he died shortly afterwards. He was the elder brother of Mr. George Sowler, an eminent surgeon, who practised for many years at the east end of London, and with particular success as an accoucheur, and was a great collector of various articles of vertu, and died at S. Leonards-on-sea, Sussex (whither he had retired to spend the latter years of his life), on the 16th August 1855, at the advanced age of 87 years. One of the daughters of Mr. George Sowler married the eldest son of this scholar, Robert Scarr Sowler, esq., Q.C. (for whom see Register, anno 1826). Thomas Sowler left by his wife Helen daughter of Mr. John Slack, historical engraver, who lived in a large house in Gravel lane, Salford, close to the west end of Trinity chapel, three sous and one daughter. Mrs. Sowler died on the 17th January 1S39, aged 50, and was buried in a vault, under S. James's church, Manchester.

No old scholar took his place among his contemporaries and juniors at the anniversary meetings more regularly than Mr. Sowler did, and he was frequently called upon to sing Mr. Edward Chesshyre's Grammar school song. His name appears for the last time in 1856.

He resided at Bowdon during the latter years of his life, where he died, on the 18th November 1857, aged 68, and was buried in the churchyard, leaving three sons and two daughters. His eldest daughter, Frances (the only surviving one), married James Thomson, esq., of Ellerthwaite, Windermere. His second daughter, Mary Helen, died unmarried on the 6th June 1855, in London, and is buried at Bowdon. His youngest daughter, Harriet, who married the rev. Bevis Green, son of Mr. B. E. Green, a partner in the great publishing house of Longman, Green and Co., of London, died at Bromyard, Herefordshire, on the 27th February i860, and was buried at Bowdon, her husband not long surviving her.

For his sons, Thomas and John, proprietors and publishers of the Manchester Courier, which has now become a daily paper, and is still the conservative organ of the city, see anno 1828. 


Wednesday, 4 December 2019

A Moss Side Childhood

A Moss Side Childhood
Dennis Gent









I WAS BORN at 6.40 am on the 12th January, 1922 at 168, Lloyd Street, Greenheys, Manchester 15, exactly twelve months to the day after my parents married. My grandfather owned quite a lot of property, mainly rows of terraced houses, and soon after my birth my parents moved to one of his houses at 147, Bishop Street, Moss Side,Manchester. I don't think my mother was very happy there. She had been born and brought up at Sharston Farm, near Northenden, and in those days it was like the heart of the countryside with woods and green fields, and lots of wildlife. There was hardly a leaf or a blade of grass in Moss Side, apart from Alexandra Park. The houses were in rows, back-to-back with small backyards opening onto narrow entries (passage ways). It was a grey, bleak and sooty area, but the people were very houseproud even though they were mostly desperately poor. The winters were bitterly cold, with one coal fire the only heating. The bedrooms were freezing, and a hot water bottle was essential, even though we children slept three in a bed when we were young.





My father worked as a packer in the basement of a textile warehouse near Piccadilly, but was sacked along with many others during the slump in the 1920s. There was little help for the poor in those days, and certainly no dole. With a wife and baby to support Dad was desperate, not least because his tight-fisted father still insisted on the rent being paid every week. Almost as a last resort,Dad bought a cheap brush, a bag of lime, and a bucket, and went round knocking on doors asking people if they would like their cellars or backyards whitewashed. That led to colour-washing ceilings inside and eventually to painting and paperhanging. Poor Dad learnt the trade by trial and error, and in retrospect I think the standards he eventually achieved were remarkable. Not only did he become a first class decorator, but he could imitate walnut and mahogany wood grains with amazing realism.





The 1920s and 1930s were not good years for the decorating trade.Estimates had to be low to have a chance of being accepted. Paints were of very poor quality compared to today and, generally speaking, tradesmen in all the building industry were looked down upon and regarded as being inferior. Because paints were very slow drying and most houses unheated there was little work from the end of October to the beginning of March, and long hours had to be worked during the summer months to make up. This continued until the 1960s. My father employed as many as seven or eight men and apprentices in the 1930s but never made any money mainly because he was much too honest and trusting.





I don't really remember much about my early years. I was very thin and underweight with a terrible inferiority complex, and I was bullied mercilessly at school. I do remember my first day. I refused to go through the gate and clung to the railings screaming my head off. Even when I was dragged into the classroom I continued at the top of my voice, utterly disrupting the class. In desperation they brought Russell Talbot in from the next class to sit next to me and I finally shut up. Russell lived next door to me in Bishop Street.Russell was about a year older than me. When he was about eleven he was waylaid on his way home from school by the Fletcher twins, two bullies from the same class. They jumped on him from behind and injured his spine. He spent years in a kind of straitjacket and was crippled for life, being unable to turn his head from side to side. I used to go round and we played various games together for hours. Theschool, incidentally, was St Margaret's Elementary in Great Western Street, and was demolished over thirty years ago like most of the streets in Moss Side and Hulme. My schooldays at St Margaret's were not happy: discipline was harsh and a lot of bullying went on. The boys' school consisted of one huge room with a class in each corner separated by folding screens. There was an open coal fire at each end so that the boys at the front of the class roasted and those at the back froze. As the screens were only about six feet high you could clearly hear what was going on in all the other classes, and it's a miracle we were nearly all proficient at least in the three Rs. The headmaster sat behind his desk like a bird of prey just inside the main door where he could see all, and no one could sneak past. His leather tawse with four thongs was always at the ready for latecomers or any unfortunate pupil who had committed some heinous crime, such as talking in class, not doing homework, or having unpolished shoes.One interesting ritual took place most play times. The boys' and girls' toilets were roofless and separated only by a six-foot brick wall. Our objective was to try to get a jet over the top of the wall,success being greeted with girlish screams, and cheers and raucous laughter from the boys.




One day the teacher, Mr Clarkson, called me to his desk at the front of the class and asked me, very quietly, if I got enough to eat. I was quite shocked and said, 'Oh yes, sir, I do sir.' There were few luxuries in our house but I never ever remember being hungry. I realised much later that my mother deliberately denied herself so that Dad and us children had sufficient. My mother's oneluxury was a hot bath every Sunday afternoon. She would run the water, hand hot, until the bath was a quarter full. Then she would get in and continue running really hot water until the bathroom was full of steam. After an hour she would come out looking like a lobster, but relaxed and happy.



I remember the holiday in, I think, Penmaenmawr, when I asked if the mountains were made of cardboard. The only mountains I had seen were those at the Belle Vue fireworks, backdrops for the wonderful battle scenes, and they were made of cardboard. Every Sunday during the summer months (it had to be Sunday, because Dad worked five and a half long days a week then, and it was always football on Saturday afternoon) our parents took us all out for the day, sometimes to Ainsdale Sands near Southport, but more often it was a tram or trainride from Central Station into the country. It was really unspoilt in those days with hardly any cars, and we usually had the fields andlanes to ourselves. I remember particularly Dunham Park, Altrincham,and Alton Towers. At Ainsdale we seemed to be the only people on that vast expanse of sand dunes. Mile after mile of hot, soft sandhills relieved only by patches of cotton grass. Often it was dark as we travelled home, our backs so burnt with the blistering sun that we daren't lean against the wooden backrests on the number eleven tramas it rattled and swung from side to side down Lower Mosely Street,Jackson Street, Alexandra Road and Yarburgh Street to the terminus on Withington Road. These were happy times which compensated a little for our drab existence among the brick walls and smoking chimneys of Moss Side.
At 149 Bishop Street lived my Auntie Dora and Uncle Dan, who was a traveller for a paint and wallpaper company. They were the first in the district to get a wireless set and a telephone. A few doors up lived a stout old lady who used to stand on her front doorstep with her arms folded. She was famed for a saying, often quoted by my father, which was 'It's bin one of them days as is days.'
Every street corner had its shop. I was sent to one called Jones's to buy a crusty cob with a sixpenny bit. Whilst standing waiting to be served I put the sixpence in my mouth and swallowed it. It was recovered the next day.
We formed gangs with other neighbourhood kids and played out till long after dark. We always ran home though when we heard the familiar undulating whistle as Mam called us in, the same whistle that Granpa Neild used to call the hens from far and wide when it was feeding time.



Dad used to take us into Alexandra Park on Sunday mornings,through the rockery, round the lake and the rose garden. It was beautiful then with masses of flowers everywhere and a magnificent cactus house, but no one was allowed on the grass and parkies with whistles kept an eagle eye on us. We always ended our morning at the Demesne Road end of the avenue of lime trees where we dug small pieces of granite out of the path. These we took home and attempted to polish by laboriously rubbing them on the back doorstep, which was made of sandstone.



Sunday dinner was always wonderful, which was not surprising considering Mam had spent most of the morning preparing it. I remember most of all the tiny new potatoes, which must have taken hours to scrape, and the glorious fruit flans, a pastry base filled with whatever fruit was in season, all smothered in thick, whipped cream.
Uncle Harry worked for Dad in Bishop Street days and slept in the attic. My job was to try to get him up and I used to climb the steep stairs time and again to shake him. He just muttered 'Alright', turned over, pulled the sheet over his head and promptly went back to sleep, while Dad and his men waited fuming down below with the handcart loaded ready for off.
Cockroaches were a pest and used to live in cracks in the narrowback scullery. After we'd been to the pictures - the West End in Withington Road, the Imperial, Brooks's Bar, or the Regent on the bridge on Princess Road - we used to creep in quietly, switch on the light, and I would dash round stamping on as many as I could before they got away.



The most carefree times were those we spent at Sharston Farm, only four miles from Bishop Street, but another world. That short journey took us from the terraced houses, back yards and entries of Moss Side to the green, unspoilt countryside of Cheshire. There were absolutely no restrictions and we could do as we pleased. We went across Shenton's field to the pond where we used to swing up and down on along branch stretching out over the water. We went to Gatley Woods, where the undergrowth was like a jungle, but we could play there all day without fear. There was a den over the shippon where we had orange boxes for seats and a table, and jam jars full of buttercups and daisies. The cinder-covered yard between the Tea Rooms and the big ash tree was where we used to play trains. One of us would shuffle around, pushing a yard brush in front to make the track,round and round, twisting and spiralling, crossing and re-crossing until the track was like a maze, and the rest of us had to try to follow.
Every Easter chocolate eggs were hidden in hen's nests in the outbuildings, and we searched excitedly until we found them. There was a very old hen house where, reaching across the perches to the nest boxes, I slipped and fell into about eighteen inches of soft,foul-smelling droppings. I ran howling to the house and was unceremoniously dumped into the sandstone trough under the pump and sluiced with ice-cold water.The summers must have been generally fine, dry and often hot because I don't remember much bad weather.




I think the happiest times of all were the summer holidays. Oh the joy of packing the huge, heavy, leather portmanteau as we prepared for our annual trip to Newton's farm at Langdale End. The tram ride to Victoria Station, and the steam train through Lancashire and Yorkshire to Scarborough, then Mr Noble's bus through the beautiful,leafy lanes until we rattled across the wooden bridge over the river Derwent, and we were there. Every day was sheer magic. Long, long walks over the heather-covered moors, down the banks of the river with huge anthills every few yards, through the dales where the dense foliage overhead made it a green semi-darkness underneath, and the 7am plunge into the icy waters of the river with Dad always first in. And, above all, the glorious silence and solitude. I think we were the only visitors in the whole area. We walked for miles in all directions, and rarely saw a soul, apart from the occasional local.But we did see lots of wildlife: whole colonies of rabbits in warrens, stoats, water voles, trout and other freshwater creatures,adders, herons, various birds of prey, and hosts of insects. We gathered wild strawberries, blackberries and bilberries, and Mrs Newton and Kathleen made them into pies for us. It seemed only rarely that we had to shelter and make a log fire under the stone bridge over the river Derwent. Other outings would be to Belle Vue for the zoo and the firework display, and to Smithfield Market every Christmas Eve.







I don't remember much else about my life during those years, apart from going to Saturday morning matinee at the Park Picture Palace for 1d admission, Sunday School at the Wesleyan Methodist Church on the corner of Great Western Street and Withington Road, and then joining the Wolf Cubs, and later the Boy Scouts. Three brothers named Foden ran the Cubs, Scouts and Rovers, and they set a wonderful example for us boys. They organised games, shows (very amateurish) and camping holidays. I remember one show which was based on a radio programme called 'In Town Tonight'. Celebrities visiting London were interviewed. I was supposed to be an American, Hiram something-or-other, who had to say, 'Advertising pays. A codfish lays 100,000 eggs and nobody knows. A hen lays one egg and tells all the world.' I had a check jacket and flat cap that Dad lent me, and he made the big mistake of lending me his one and only cigar he was saving for Christmas. I was so nervous I chewed the cigar to ragged shreds before I even got on the stage.





Most camping holidays were locally in Derbyshire, but there was one memorable year when we went to Scotland and crossed on the ferry to the Isle of Arran. I can still smell the bacon George Foden fried for breakfast over an open fire. There is just one other camping holiday I will never forget and for good reason. It was organised by St Margaret's, and was a week in bell tents in Hayfield. It started badly because my parents couldn't afford to buy me a rucksack so my spare clothing was made up into a brown paper parcel tied with string. It was raining as I made my way to the school and, as I waited in the playground for our group to assemble, the brown paper started to disintegrate. The other boys laughed at me as I clutched desperately at my shirts, short trousers and underwear, and tears of shame rolled down my cheeks. A teacher took pity on me and made up myparcel again with fresh brown paper from inside the school, and saved me from further humiliation.
As I said, it was raining, and it never stopped all week. A tent in a field was the worst possible place to be - and the tent leaked.The never-ending rain caused a thick mist to develop which brought visibility down to a few yards, and soon we were ankle-deep in mud.My clothes were wet, my straw palliasse and blankets were wet, and I was wretchedly homesick. The outcome was that I developed rheumatic fever from which I nearly died, my temperature once reaching 106ºF. Most of the next six months or more I was unable even to stand, and I remember very little apart from frequent visits by the doctor, and my mother carrying me in her arms and immersing me in rock salt baths several times a week. I must have been ten or eleven years old and, although I recovered, it left me with swollen joints, knees like door knobs and a murmur of the heart. The last was only discovered on a trip to Italy in the late 1940s. I contracted pneumonia (and again nearly died), the doctor saying I had a murmur but fortunately my heart was otherwise very strong. Incredibly I had been passed A1 for the army only a few years previously. Reminds me of an old joke during the war: a man in a wheelchair goes for his medical, the doctor looks at him, turns to his assistant and says, 'Oil his wheels and pass him A1.'
I think I was slightly above average at school because I always tried hard. English was easily my best subject, and I was ok on most others including arithmetic, but algebra I found completely incomprehensible. Life could be cruel at times though. When I was twelve one of the sections in English was spelling. There were twenty words, given verbally by the teacher, and some were quite difficult.I spelt every one correctly, but was given three marks only. Why? Because I began each one with a capital letter, and the only ones marked as correct were the three words which did begin with a capital, like Australia. I was heartbroken and only came third in class. With full marks for spelling I would have been first for the one and only time in my life.




Shortly afterwards I sat an exam for entrance to the Junior School of Art, and to my amazement I passed. The School of Art was on the top floor of the School of Commerce building in Princess Street which, I believe, was originally a Trades Union headquarters. I was twelve and a half when I went there for two years. I quite enjoyed myart study there, and on leaving joined a small firm in Chepstow Street behind what was then the New Oxford cinema. There was only a small staff of about twenty, about three quarters of them girls. Themanager, Mr Speakman, was a young man in his late twenties who was a brilliant artist and had all the worry and responsibility. The boss, Mr Cotton, came late, left early, and sat in his little office all the time. I soon saw there was no future for me in textile designing, though I enjoyed it. There was no equality and the girls, who were at least as good if not better than the boys, received 7s 6d a week and we got 10s. I talked it over with my father and he agreed to me going into decorating, but not with him. He said I should be apprenticed to a big firm so I could learn every branch of the trade. So I went into Mr Cotton's office and told him I wanted to leave, and he immediately offered me a rise to 12s 6d per week. My mind was made up and I went for an interview at the firm of G. F. Holding Ltd, Withington Road, Brooks's Bar, Manchester. They were rather reluctant to take me on because they usually took a boy straight from school aged fourteen, and I was just fifteen. However, they gave me a chance (maybe the Art School training helped) and I did just one year in the 'paint shop' instead of the usual two. In those days there were few ready-to-use tins of paint and in the paint shop were kegs and barrels of various pigments in paste form - Venetian Red, Golden Ochre, Brunswick Green etc - which had to be weighed out into smaller containers ready to go out to the jobs. Also there were forty-gallon casks of pure American turpentine, boiled linseed oil and raw linseed oil. The main item and the basic ingredient in most paints, which had to be mixed on the job, was white lead. This was delivered to the yard a ton at a time in smallish metal kegs each weighing one hundredweight (fifty kilos)and it was hard work carrying them from the lorry in the back entry, across the yard, and stacking them in a corner of the paint shop. The main task for the boy was 'getting jobs up', i. e. getting out all the large variety of materials: tackle (ladders, steps etc.), paints, brushes, dust sheets and so on. All quantities had to be marked down against a printed list which was given to the foreman. On completion this list was returned and all items checked off and remaining pigments weighed and marked down. This system certainly gave a good idea of the actual cost of each job and kept pilfering down to a  minimum. Perhaps the worst job was cleaning out the paint kettle (cans). These came back with thick layers of dry paint inside. At one end of the yard was an old iron bath on trestles. This was filled with water in which a large quantity of caustic soda crystals had been dissolved. The cans were immersed in this until the paint softened, usually several days. They were then scraped clean and washed out with a hosepipe. You quickly learnt that great care had to be taken when putting the cans in the caustic soda: any splashes on your skin immediately resulted in large blisters. A copy of the Factories Act Safety Regulations was displayed on the wall but completely ignored. No goggles or gloves were supplied, no first aid box, not even anywhere to wash your hands except a cold water tap in the yard which had the hosepipe attached, so you ate your butties after handling white lead, lime, caustic and other dangerous substances.
After a year I went out on the job with the painters. Transport was by foot, bicycle, tram or bus, even train. Only the bosses had cars. G. F. Holding had jobs throughout the North West and North Wales, and included cinemas, churches, shops and offices as well as private, but the bulk of their work was for breweries, everything from the street corner pub in Salford to huge hotels. I'll never forget one four-storey, plaster-fronted pub called 'The Grapes' in Salford. It was on a busy main road, and as the pavement was not very wide the foot of the ladder was in the gutter. Even then it had to be very straight up, and it was not pleasant for the painters working at the top. My job was 'footing' the ladder, eight hours a day, day after day. The only relief came when I made the morning. midday and afternoon brews, usually about twenty, some without milk, some without sugar, but most heavily sweetened, even some with condensed milk. The latter was mixed into a paste with the tea and sugar, and had to be scraped off the waxed bread-wrapping it was usually brought in. At lunchtime, twelve until one o'clock, I went to the shops with a list for meat and potato pies, chips, fish, steak puddings etc., and it was woe betide me if I forgot anything or mixed them up. I went out with my list at 11.30 am. We worked from 8 am until 5.30 pm,and 8 till 12 on Saturdays. We apprentices had to put up with a lot of ragging, but it was all good fun. I was sent to the shops once for a pound of glass tacks and a rubber hammer - or was it the other way round? Another time I was told to ask for a long stand. Of course,the shopkeeper was in on the time-honoured joke, and told you to wait in the corner.




A year passed by, and then came the best years of your apprenticeship, which really did give you a thorough grounding in the decorating trade. I spent a year with a first-class paperhanger, then six months with the grainer (he really was an artist and could imitate any kind of wood and marble), another six months with the signwriter and so on.
Just before Christmas 1940 we had heavy air raids on Manchester and all staff were put on bomb damage repairs. 'All staff' actually consisted of elderly or infirm painters and young apprentices. The work involved covering roofs which had had slates blown off with roofing felt, fixed with laths, and nailing transparent sheeting over glassless window frames. The 'Big Boss', G. F. Holding, had retired, and his son, F. L., took me on as his assistant. I went round the bomb sites, took a note of materials required, saw that they were ordered and delivered, collected time sheets, and took the wage packets to the foremen to distribute. I felt quite important, and believe my call-up was delayed because of this work. Eventually - I can't remember exactly when - I went for my medical, and took an aptitude and intelligence test. I was asked which service I would prefer, and I said the R. A. F. I thought the uniform was rather nice, and I had an idea it would appeal to the girls more than khaki. I didn't fancy the Navy at all. Of course, when my papers arrived I found I was not only joining the Army, but the Tank Corps - me, who knew absolutely nothing about mechanics or radio and had never driven in my life. So much for the aptitude tests.




From here on my story is told in my letters home. I wrote frequently, and generally in great detail about life in the forcesand my travels in North Africa and Italy, culminating in that magical moment when I first set eyes on that lovely, vivacious girl in Cusano Milanino who was to become my wife.

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Philip Tucker and Ladybrook Securities Ltd

All the information on this page is freely available on the internet



13 Wigmore Road


This is a freehold property which is subject to an annual chief rent charge of 10gns (£10.50) payable to Ladybrook Securities Ltd, operated as sole director by Philip Tucker from his premises at 10, Maritime Avenue Southampton.

The deeds of the property contain the following clause:
‘Not to erect or suffer to be erected on the said plot of land hereby conveyed or any part thereof any messuage or dwellinghouse buidings or other erections in addition to the said dwellinghouse messuage or bungalow and any other buildings now erected or in course of erection upon the said plot of land without the previous consent in writing of the Sub-Vendor which consent shall not be unreasonably be withheld in respect of a garage and/or tool shed required for the use of the occupiers of the premises hereby conveyed.’

For decades this clause was interpreted in its literal sense: that no additional house be erected on the site without permission. However, in recent years Philip Tucker and Ladybrook Securities have reinterpreted the clause to mean that all alterations, such as double glazing, a new bathroom, the erection of a porch etc within the terms of permitted development, also need their written consent. This had led to many problems, such as I and many others have experienced, where a solicitor has been intimidated by this new interpretation, My own solicitor is adamant that this new interpretation is incorrect. In practice solicitors who have called the bluff of Ladybrook Securities Ltd have succeeded in having the claim abandoned.





This forum shows how Ladybrook Securities Ltd and its sister companies operate, confusing freehold and leasehold rights, and abusing them:
These are some useful posts from this thread:
I am in the process of helping my 81 year old mother move house. She pays ground rent to LS, and the solicitors have written to them to confirm payments are up to date. Received the following:
'we are aware of several changes made to the property by your client, without permission. We shall expect retrospective approval to be sought in respect of these'
Now, my Mum has lived in the property for 49 years. However, it remains as built with the only work undertaken to replace old windows doors etc when required. A quick google reveals that LS were charging £2500 for retrospective approval in 1999. Anyone else come across this? This is the only issue preventing completion and we are struggling to see how it can be resolved.


I have exactly the same issue with a house I am in the process of purchasing. Ladybrook Securities own the ground rent on a freehold property. However they have written and said the property i am buying requires retrospective consent from them for double glazing and also that any future works required will need a full specification submitting to them for their 'consideration'. They are treating it as if they are a full leaseholder when it's freehold with a ground rent. My solicitor can't exchange until the retrospective consent is sorted with the vendors' solicitor and Ladybrook - however they are not responding.
They have no contact phone number and between us all we would be happy to buy out the ground rent but it's just proving so difficult. I am in a chain and I don't know how long this will take, it's very frustrating.
On average how long do people take to get a response from Ladybrook? I'm going to need to exchange on my own sale shortly or lose my buyer, but don't want to be in rented indefinitely while this gets sorted, or do I cut my loses and buy something else?
Any advice on people's experiences gratefully received. Thanks.


I'm selling my old house (built 1887), and made early contact with Ladybrook securities (who happen to take over the rent management in 2005) to get a receipt for my ground rent payments (they wanted £24 fee) which they co-operated and provided.
6 weeks later and out-of-the-blue on the day of completion the solicitor gets a letter from Ladybrook saying I've breached the lease because Ive changed the windows and the bathroom. Nothing else was said.
My solicitor says the lease document (which is very old) has no rules regarding windows and bathroom and only on external extensions.
Unfortunately the buyers solicitor is insisting on a letter from Ladybrook confirm there has been no breach.
My solicitor send them a letter requesting this on the 20th August 2018. No reply from Ladybrook, so a chasing letter has been sent this week 03 Sept 2018.
If they don't respond as am expecting I will lose the sale and the house will be unsalable?? How is this allowed.
The solicitor also says a covenant indemnity policy cannot be taken out now because contact has already been made by Ladybrook regarding a breach.
The solicitor seems clueless how to resolve this if they do not get contact from Ladybrook.


My solicitor sent a letter to Ladybrook stating I had not breached the lease by changing the windows/bathroom. Ladybrook never responded.
My solicitor sent a 'chasing' letter to Ladybrook stating I had not breached the lease by changing the windows/bathroom. Ladybrook responded with a letter simply saying "we still think there is an issue"
My solicitor then sent a letter to Ladybrook with a copy of the lease asking them to highlight the part which I breached. Ladybrook eventually came back saying "Thanks for the copy of the lease, We agree that there is no clause which requires our consent to any alterations."

Ladybrook Securities Ltd were named in the House of Commons in 1998 for their malpractices.




Who is responsible for this?















10 Maritime Avenue

The address used by Philip Tucker is interesting. I presumed it was his home address, but in fact it appears to be used nominally for business purposes, and also as an address behind which he and members of his family can hide. He has no telephone number or email address, and does not live in the property, though up to seven people are listed as actually living there. His real address is carefully hidden. Searches on the internet reveal exceptionally little about him. Companies House records reveal details of his several companies.
This house is a small terraced property, with one downstairs reception room and two bedrooms. I suspect that it is not lived in, unless it is let to a person. It has so far proved impossible to find where in fact Philip Tucker and his family actually reside.


















Is this the real address?
There is no record of this property changing hands since 1995



Marchwood Yacht Club

This is a very recent case brought successfully against Philip Tucker who appears to have registered the company name in a manner similar to people who preemptively purchase domain names hoping to then sell them for a considerable profit.






Decision

Decision on Marchwood Yacht Club Limited

Published 12 June 2019




Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 1816 by Marchwood Yacht Club

For a change of the company name of registration No 9934035
Background, Claims and Defences

1. MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED (hereafter ‘the respondent’) was incorporated on 4 January 2016.

2. On 7 August 2018, MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB (an unincorporated association) (hereafter ‘the applicant’) applied for an Order under section 69 of the Companies Act 2006 (‘the Act’) for the company name MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED to be changed.

3. Section 69 of the Act states:

“(1) A person (“the applicant”) may object to a company’s registered name on the ground-

(a) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or

(b) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

(2) The objection must be made by application to a company names adjudicator (see section 70).

(3) The company concerned shall be the primary respondent to the application.

Any of its members or directors may be joined as respondents.

(4) If the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is established, it is for the respondents to show

(a) that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill; or

(b) that the company-

(i) is operating under the name, or

(ii) is proposing to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation, or

(iii) was formerly operating under the name and is now dormant; or

(c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business; or

(d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

(e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

If none of these is shown, the objection shall be upheld.

(5) If the facts mentioned in subsection 4(a), (b) or (c) are established, the objection shall nevertheless be upheld if the applicant shows that the main purpose of the respondents (or any of them) in registering the name was to obtain money (or other consideration) from the applicant or prevent him from registering the name.

(6) If the objection is not upheld under subsection (4) or (5), it shall be dismissed.

(7) In this section ‘goodwill’ includes reputation of any description.”

4. The applicant requested that the primary respondent’s director, Mr Philip Tucker, be joined to the proceedings under the provisions of section 69(3) of the Act. Mr Tucker was given notice of this request and provided with an opportunity to comment or to object. No response was received from Mr Tucker and he was joined to the proceedings as a co-respondent on 28 March 2018.

5. The applicant claims that the name associated with it is Marchwood Yacht Club.

6. In its CNA1 it submits that the applicant was formed in 1963 as an unincorporated association operating as a not for profit organisation. It has charitable status. The membership includes beginners and experienced sailors and currently had 320 members. When affiliates and family members are included, there are more than 600 individuals associated with the club. The club is affiliated to the Royal Yacht Association and has a long-standing history and relationship with the local community.

7. The applicant has a clubhouse, galley and dining room which can accommodate 200 people and holds ‘food themed’ nights along with a programme of lectures over the winter months. Mooring is available for boats up to 40 feet in length with a pontoon for deep water berths and a boat park with capacity for 160 boats for winter storage and annual maintenance. The club has its own private slipway for launching and recovering boats and dinghies. The applicant regularly arranges sailing cruises and sailing tuition with Friendly Club Racing taking place on Wednesday evenings and at weekends.

8. The applicant has its own shop selling branded clothing and has hosted its own website (www.marchwoodyc.org.uk) since 2010 1.

9. The applicant submits that it has, “considerable goodwill and a strong reputation in its local area, the city and within the wider sailing and boating community”.

10. In addition, the applicant claims that the primary respondent’s company name has caused confusion for suppliers, contractors and customers. The respondent’s registered company name is too similar to the applicant’s club which is located on the same road as the respondent’s registered office? This is a pleading under section 69(1)(b) of the Act. The applicant requests that the Tribunal make an order under section 73 of the Act for the name to be changed to a name which does not offend. 2

11. At paragraph 3 of the attachment to the application for a change of company name the applicant submits:

“Contact with Philip Tucker: [The applicant] has not had any contact with Mr Tucker. The Secretary has attempted to make contact with Mr Tucker at his premises but no-one was at home. Some time ago a member of the club wrote to him at 10 Maritime Avenue on the Club’s behalf, concerning the use of the Club’s name but there was no response. A copy of this letter is attached at page 5.”

12. The applicant filed evidence in the form of two witness statements. The first is David Robert Rouse, a member of the applicant since 1991 and its current Honorary Secretary. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Mr David Rouse’s witness statement submit that he called twice at the primary respondent’s Maritime Avenue address, once on a Sunday lunchtime and a second time, on the way to a meeting at the applicant’s club on a Monday. There was no answer on either occasion. He further submits that the applicant’s solicitor wrote to Mr Tucker on the applicant’s behalf, concerning the use of the applicant’s name but no response was received.

13. The second of the applicant’s witness statements is by Mr Russell Hawkins, (the applicant’s secretary between November 2014 and November 2017). He submits that he became aware of the contested company name registration in January 2016 when a letter from Companies House was posted to the applicant in error. On 25 January 2016 Mr Hawkins visited the respondent’s address which he describes as being ‘about 100 yards away’ from the applicant’s premises. There was no answer.

14. Mr Hawkins concludes his statement as follows:

“9. I live between the yacht club and 10 Maritime Avenue. On more than six occasions while I was the secretary I knocked on the door of 10 Maritime Avenue to speak to the occupant but never has anyone answered.”

15. Further attempts, by third parties, to contact the respondents are referred to in the witness statements provided by the applicant’s past and present secretaries.

16. The respondent filed a counterstatement (form CNA2), which was completed by Mr Philip Tucker. Section 3 of the form specifically asks the respondent to set out any defences upon which it wishes to rely. The respondent indicated that ‘the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent’. A short letter is attached to the form. This is the only submission made by the respondent and we reproduce it in full:



“ 1. Since its incorporation in January 2016 the Company has remained dormant and undertaken no activities of any kind, no letters or emails have been written or sent and there is no web site or other public presence. The only actions taken have been the provision of Statutory Dormant Accounts to HMRC and Companies House and the filing of the Confirmation Statement with Companies House. Only one letter has ever been received and that was in January 2016.

2. I live and work from home at [10 Maritime Avenue] and no one has ever called at my property or tried to make contact with me at my address.

3. I have not used the applicant’s details in any way and refute that there has been ‘passing off’ of any kind.”

17. The claim made by the respondent relates to a potential defence under section 69(4)(e).

18. In addition to the applicant’s evidence filed on 23 November 2018, it filed written submissions dated 20 March 2019. The respondent filed neither. None of the parties requested a hearing and so this decision is taken following careful consideration of the papers filed.
Evidence

19. At paragraph 45 of his statement Mr Rouse submits:

“As a consequence of Mr Tucker’s pursuits, the [applicant] has experienced difficulty obtaining credit because of the unsanctioned acquiring of our name. It has received telephone calls, sometimes from irate or annoyed individuals, and companies, trying to contact Mr Tucker…”

20. Mr Rouse submits that prior to September 2017 the applicant lost its chef and in making new arrangements, the Flag Officers approached a wholesale food supplier to supply the club restaurant. Initially, the applicant was refused credit on the basis that it was the respondent company. A letter was sent to the wholesaler from the applicant to explain that there was no connection between the two businesses and that the applicant had no connection to Mr Tucker. That letter is dated 25 September 2017. 3

21. Mr Rouse also provides seven examples of people attempting to contact the co-respondent on the applicant’s business telephone. These occurred between 4 December 2017 and 8 November 2018 and include an estate agent, an insurance company and number of private individuals. Two of these are described as irate or angry when they were informed that Mr Tucker was not connected to the applicant.

22. The remaining evidence relates to activities of other businesses owned by the co-respondent, Mr Tucker. There is no need to say anything more about this because it is not relevant to this case.
Decision

23. The applicant must establish that it has goodwill or reputation in relation to a name that is the same, or sufficiently similar, to that of the respondent’s company name suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant. Only if this burden is fulfilled is it then necessary to consider if the respondent can rely upon defences under section 69(4) of the Act. The relevant date is the date of incorporation of the contested company which, in this case, is 4 January 2016. The applicant must show that it had a relevant goodwill or reputation at this date.
Goodwill

24. The respondent makes no definitive statement with regard to the applicant’s goodwill.

25. The evidence in support of the applicant’s case is provided in the applicant’s statement of case and in the witness statements of Mr Rouse and Mr Hawkins, both of whom (at different times) have been elected Honourable Secretary to the applicant.

26. The applicant has not provided documentation in support of its goodwill, beyond the statements referred to above. These statements as to the nature of the business have not been challenged and each includes a statement of truth, signed by the respective witness.

27. From the witness statements, it is clear that the applicant operates a yacht club. The club provides a clubhouse, mooring facilities and access to waterways via its private slipway. In addition, tuition, cruises and competitions are arranged and provided by the club. The applicant operates a shop which sells, inter alia, branded clothing and also has a website at www.marchwoodyc.org.uk.

28. The applicant’s yacht club is affiliated to the Royal Yacht Association and is an authorised RYA training centre. It is a not for profit organisation, operated primarily by volunteers. It is run by a general committee which has elected officers, including (at various points) the two Honourable Secretaries who have given evidence. Within the statements reference is also made to the club’s bar steward, bar staff and Flag Officers.

29. As well as providing sailing events for its members, the club also offers dinghy sailing to local residents and their children in the summer months. 4

30. The primary public-facing trading name of the business is Marchwood Yacht Club.

31. It is clear from the evidence that the business referred to in the pleaded case is well-known in the local area, having been established in 1963. Mr Rouse describes it as enabling people in the local area to enjoy sailing. Given the applicant’s affiliation with the Royal Yacht Association and the fact that it is an authorised training centre, it is likely that knowledge of the applicant extends beyond the local area, though from the evidence provided, we cannot be sure to what extent. Taking all of the statements into account the evidence is sufficient to establish that the applicant had goodwill in the UK at the relevant date in relation to the operation of a yacht club. Goodwill lies in the name ‘Marchwood Yacht Club’.
Does the respondent’s company name suggest a connection between it and the applicant?

32. The respondent’s name is MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED. The name associated with the applicant is ‘Marchwood Yacht Club’. Consequently, the difference between the names is the absence/presence of “LIMITED” which simply indicates the corporate status of the company, something which is necessary in most company names. We consider that this difference is to be ignored for the purpose of the comparison (see, for example, MB Inspection Ltd v Hi-Rope Ltd 5 at paragraph 48).

33. Consequently we find these names to be the same. If we are wrong about that then the respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to ‘Marchwood Yacht Club’ such that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

34. Given our findings in respect of goodwill and the connection likely to be made between the respective company names, the applicant has cleared the first two burdens placed upon it. That is the end of the matter unless the respondent can avail itself of one or more of the defences. This is a matter to which we now turn.
Defences

69(4)(e) -The interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

35. The respondent is relying upon one defence, this being that the interests of the applicant not being adversely affected to any significant extent. To adversely affect the interests of the applicant to any significant extent the company name must do more than just sit on the register at Companies House. In this case, the adverse effect must relate to the potential use of the company name in business.

36. The principal activities for which the respondent’s company name is registered are ‘sports activities’. We bear in mind that under the Act the connection under section 69(1) must be made upon the basis of the names themselves. Thus, the field of activity is not strictly pertinent (although it may have relevance when it comes to establishing defences). In any event, fields of activities may change. In fact, in this case the co-respondent has stated that, “Since its incorporation in January 2016 the Company has remained dormant and undertaken no activities of any kind”. Notwithstanding this, sports activities would include watersports and yachting which are directly applicable in these circumstances.

37. To rely on a ‘no adverse effect’ defence it is for the respondent to show, in evidence, what it has done or intends to do. The respondent has not provided any evidence and the defence must fail at the first hurdle.

38. In addition, despite the applicant’s assertion that the primary respondent is a dormant company, we note that this has not prevented a number of individuals and companies contacting the applicant in the mistaken belief that it is connected to the co-respondent. This suggests that the primary respondent has engaged in activity of some kind. There are also claims that the presence of the respondent company has impacted the applicant’s ability to obtain credit. These factors must, at least, be time consuming for the applicant to deal with and clearly show that the respondent’s registration of what is in effect, the same company name, is having an adverse effect on the applicant’s business.

39. For all of the reasons indicated, the ‘no adverse effect’ defence under section 69(4)(e) of the Act is rejected.
Conclusion

40. The application is successful. In accordance with section 73(1) of the Act, the following order is made:

(a) MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;

(b) MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED and Mr Philip Tucker shall:

(i) take such steps as are within its power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

41. In accordance with section 73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

42. In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, a new company name will be determined as per section 73(4) of the Act and notice will be given of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

43. All respondents, including individual co-respondents, have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006 not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.
Costs

44. The applicant has been successful and so we turn to the matter of costs.

45. The applicant submits that, ‘some time ago’ one of its members wrote to the primary respondent on its behalf regarding the registration of the contested company name but that no response was received to that letter. No date is provided for this correspondence. 6 The applicant further submits that its solicitor wrote to Mr Tucker at 10 Maritime Avenue concerning use of the applicant’s name but that no response was received. 7 Neither of these letters have been provided in evidence.

46. In addition, Mr Hawkins states that he visited the primary respondent’s address on 25 January 2016, when a letter from Companies House was delivered to the applicant in error. He submits that in total, he visited the address on ‘more than six occasions’ and did not receive an answer at any time. Mr Rouse confirms that he also visited the primary respondent’s address on two occasions, again no answer was forthcoming.

47. In a letter attached to the primary respondent’s CNA2, Mr Tucker says, “Only one letter has ever been received and that was in January 2016.” It is not clear who this letter was from or what it related to. In addition, Mr Tucker submits:

“2. I live and work from home at [10 Maritime Avenue] and no one has ever called at my property or tried to make contact with me at my address.”

48. It is clear from the applicant’s evidence that the applicant itself, along with five other individuals and two businesses, have attempted to contact the primary and co-respondent in this case, seemingly without success.

49. Taking all of the evidence and submissions into account we find that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to contact the primary respondent at the address given on the company register and consequently it is entitled to a contribution towards its costs on the basis of the scale of costs 8 which applied at the date these proceedings were commenced.

50. We award the following:

Fee for filing the application: £400
Fee for filing evidence: £150
Preparing a statement and considering the counterstatement: £400
Preparing evidence: £400
Written submissions: £400

Total: £1750

51. MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB LIMITED and Mr Philip Tucker are ordered to pay MARCHWOOD YACHT CLUB the sum of £1750 within fourteen days of the expiry of the appeal period, or within fourteen days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful. The respondents are jointly and severally liable for these costs. Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to uphold the application; there is no right of appeal in relation to costs.

52. Any notice of appeal must be given within one month of the date of this decision. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland. The Tribunal must be advised if an appeal is lodged.

Dated 6 June 2019

Al Skilton
Company Names Adjudicator

Mark King
Company Names Adjudicator

Allan James
Company Names Adjudicator



We note that the CNA1 says 2010, but the attached submissions say 2005.


Section 73(2) of the Act provides that an “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69.


See exhibit DRR3.


See Rouse, paragraph 9


[2010] RPC 18


Paragraph 3 of the CNA1 states that the letter is attached at page 5 but it has not been provided.


See Rouse, paragraph 25.


Published in the Practice Direction.

Philip Tucker's Companies




Total number of appointments 9

Date of birth February 1956
DEEJAYS LOCKER LIMITED (09934035)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address10 Maritime Avenue, Marchwood, Southampton, England, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed on4 January 2016
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationRetired

MACROGATE LIMITED (01637192)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence addressTen, Maritime Avenue, Southampton, England, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed on30 September 2013
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationCompany Director

ASHBY'S ELING BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED (02385447)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence addressTen, Maritime Avenue, Marchwood, Southampton, United Kingdom, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed on1 July 2011
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationCompany Director

LADYBROOK SECURITIES LIMITED (00860478)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence addressTen Maritime Avenue, Southampton, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed on1 October 2010
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationCompany Director

LADYBROOK SECURITIES LIMITED (00860478)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address10 Maritime Avenue, Southampton, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVESecretaryAppointed on30 April 2003

SKILTONCOURT LIMITED (01400198)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address10 Maritime Avenue, Southampton, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed on14 January 2000
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationChartered Secretary

HIGSONS (MANCHESTER) LIMITED (02370571)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address10 Maritime Avenue, Southampton, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVEDirectorAppointed before16 June 1991
NationalityBritishCountry of residenceEnglandOccupationCompany Director

ASHBY'S ELING BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED (02385447)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address10 Maritime Avenue, Southampton, SO40 4AW
Role ACTIVESecretaryAppointed before17 May 1991

HIGSONS (MANCHESTER) LIMITED (02370571)
Company statusActiveCorrespondence address248 Calmore Road, Calmore, Southampton, Hampshire, SO40 2RB
Role RESIGNEDSecretaryAppointed before16 June 1991Resigned on30 September 2002






Another Tucker Wedding — a Distraction


Curiously, there was another Tucker wedding around the time that Philip's parents married, but they do not seem to be in any way connected.


Lord Garnoch also used the pseudonym of David Tucker, Tucker being his American paternal grandmother's maiden name.



Mary Clare Douglas-Scott-Montague, 1953



David Lindesay-Bethune, 15th Earl of Lindsay