Mexborough and Swinton Times May 1, 1936

Important Merger
Denaby Colliery in Amalgamation Scheme
Proposals Approved

Proposals of amalgamation of several South Yorkshire colleries, involving a sum of £4 million were considered and approved at Monday’s sitting of the Railway and Canal Commission, consisting of Mr Justice Mackinnon, Sir F Taylor, and Sir F Dunnell.

The application was from the Denaby and Cadeby collieries, Ltd., The Rossington Main colliery company, Ltd the Dinnington Main colliery company Ltd., The Maltby Main colliery Company, Ltd the Strafford Collieries Co., Ltd., and the Yorkshire amalgamated collieries Ltd. It was for a scheme of partial amalgamation of all the companies with the exception of the Yorkshire amalgamated.

Holding Company.

Mr Trevor Hunter, K. C., for the applicants, said that this first six companies were working companies owing and working coal mines. The Yorkshire amalgamated company was a purely holding company which owned 99% of the ordinary share capital of the six working companies. It came into existence in March, 1927, as a result of a partial amalgamation scheme which was confirmed by the court. The six companies were South Yorkshire section of the Midland Amalgamated District, and the output of these collieries was roughly 1/9 of the output of that section.

As there were six working companies they had six separate quotas. Under the amalgamated scheme there would be one quota, and the effect of this would be to simplify matters greatly.

“There will be one ownership and one quota,” said Mr Hunter. It would make for a much more flexible working and there would be gains in efficiency and the economy.” It was proposed an entirely new company should be formed with a capital of £4 million in £1 pound shares. The colliery plant of the six working companies would be transferred to the new company in return for fully paid shares at par. That would absorb something over £3,250,000 and there would be £750,000 left for use if and when required. The companies, however, would retain surplus lands, houses and cottages, Coke ovens, wagons, cash, book debts, and investments. All the companies, and the debenture holders were in agreement with the scheme.

Objections.

Objections came from the British Tar Products Ltd. Their case was that they were interested in Coke ovens products which existed at some of the colliery that the working companies. British Tar Products Ltd., had agreements with the Dinnington and Maltby companies for the purchase of tar and crude benzole. Under these agreements it appeared that there was no obligation on the companies to work the ovens. But if they did work them, the objectors had the right to take byproducts. The Maltby Company had demolished their Coke ovens, but the Dinnington company had continued to work theirs. Provision could be made that the new company would, until 1947 supply the Dinnington company with coal for their Coke ovens, and that would leave the position as it stood between the Dinnington company and the objectors.