► A Ltd. company refuses to acknowledge wages due to an ex-employee.
► The ex-employee commences proceedings to go to court and a trial date is set.
► The Ltd. company continues to trade despite being insolvent.
► The directors of the Ltd. company set up as a Sole Trader and transfer all business to the new company (offering the same services, for the same prices, from the same address, with the same members of staff).
► The directors allow the Ltd. company to be dissolved due to non-compliance with Companies House (relating to filing) while continuing to trade as the new Sole Trader – thus avoiding liquidation or administration.
► The ex-employee, as Claimant, is unable to pursue the case in court as the official Defendant (the Ltd. company) officially no longer exists.
As that ex-employee I submitted an N244 requesting:
“To make an application to the Court to request that individuals be included as Defendants. Namely, [Name 1] and [Name 2] – the former Directors [Company 1] (the 1st Defendant) and/or make an order pertaining to s.216-217 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
To make an order pertaining to s.900 of the Companies Act 2006 for the amalgamation of the dissolved company [Company 1], and the currently trading business [Company 2] and the subsequent transference of liabilities from the transferor company to the transferee company; thus making provision for the continuation of legal proceedings against the transferor company (or to enforce TUPE regulations should they have been applied in this case). - At the discretion of the Court.”
The order wasn’t granted due to lack a non-circumstantial evidence and various technicalities, e.g. that s.216-217 of the Insolvency Act could not be applied because the company in question was dissolved due to non-compliance – they became inactive and waited to be struck off the register rather than going into liquidation.
Now, because the order wasn’t granted, I have to pay the fees for the Defendant’s lawyer – something I didn’t even know could happen in this instance.
Does this mean I will now have a CCJ on my credit history? If I appeal and won, would I still have to pay the lawyers fees for this time?
I seems criminal they are able to get away with evading my debts via a technicality while I am lumbered with paying for their lawyer.
I don’t think there has been an error in law… although I do not understand why s.900 of the Companies Act 2006 could not be applied?