Dormant Company

[rsq]

I am being sued by a sole trader say Joe Bloggs. On all correspondence to his solicitor and his insurance documents he has referred to his company as Joe Bloggs. However since court proceedings last year March 2012, he know refers to his company as Joe Bloggs Ltd. No one has picked up on this, apart from me, as I am defending myself. He hasn't notified his solicitor or his insurance company because Joe Bloggs Ltd is a dormant company. So on all court documents, particulars of claim, defence, witness statements he has used Joe Bloggs Ltd. Now Joe Bloggs Ltd is a dormant company because I have checked showing no assets or money going through the accounts since 2001 - 2012. What do you think from a legal aspect and how can I prove this is fraudulent.

Also, Is it possible for a sole trader 2 have 2 different registered addresses. If so, why

 

[SBlundell]

Not a legal beagle but surely in this case your defence is 'I have no contract with Joe Bloggs Ltd'.

If argued, simply produce the dormant accounts filed at Companies House - 'See, how can I have transacted with the dormant Joe Bloggs Ltd?'

Although I imagine I'm over-simplifying.

 

[IANL]

It is possible that the company has started trading since the last filed accounts so that is not conclusive of a dormant company. If a company is dormant as at 31/12/2012 it would not have to file accounts at companies house until 30/09/2014. It could have started trading on the 1st Jan 2013.

The only way to know is to look at all the paperwork, ( quotes, invoices, letters, emails) if it was company then they have to state that in the above. ie a company number. I think this person is trying to use the Ltd.

If this is the first time you have heard about the company then you need to advise the court and this will become the first matter, as to who the defendant should properly be.

Also look at who owns the URL of the business. ie is it the private individual. Again this is not prrof alone but all goes to assist.

 

[Spearmint]

As this is a dormant company, I'm wondering what you're being sued for!

 

[SBlundell]

It is possible that the company has started trading since the last filed accounts so that is not conclusive of a dormant company.

True, but for the sake of court proceedings surely all you have to prove is that the company was dormant at that time.

More accurately, in this case all you have to prove is that you had no contract with the company (and to substantiate that - "look even the directors acknowledged the company was dormant")

 

[IANL]

True, but for the sake of court proceedings surely all you have to prove is that the company was dormant at that time.

More accurately, in this case all you have to prove is that you had no contract with the company (and to substantiate that - "look even the directors acknowledged the company was dormant")

I agree, The documentation should prove this is the case. The insurance documents and solicitors will have to confirm who they were insuring and acting for respectively. I think the person is trying it on. I would write to the court to get this corrected.