This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-30982277
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Companies House mistake 'caused firm's collapse' | Companies House mistake 'caused firm's collapse' |
| (about 12 hours later) | |
| A High Court judge has ruled that a mistake by Companies House caused a 124-year-old south Wales company to go into administration. | A High Court judge has ruled that a mistake by Companies House caused a 124-year-old south Wales company to go into administration. |
| The case was brought by the owner of Taylor & Sons which was wrongly recorded by Companies House as being wound up in 2009. | The case was brought by the owner of Taylor & Sons which was wrongly recorded by Companies House as being wound up in 2009. |
| It was a company with a similar name, Taylor & Son, which was actually in difficulties. | It was a company with a similar name, Taylor & Son, which was actually in difficulties. |
| Companies House said it was considering the implications of the judgement. | |
| Taylor & Sons' owner Philip Davison-Sebry told the court Companies House had caused the collapse of his business, as customers walked away because they thought it was being wound up. | Taylor & Sons' owner Philip Davison-Sebry told the court Companies House had caused the collapse of his business, as customers walked away because they thought it was being wound up. |
| He is suing the agency for £8.8m. | He is suing the agency for £8.8m. |
| In his judgement, Mr Justice Edis found Companies House owed a duty of care when entering a winding up order to take reasonable care to ensure that the order is not registered against the wrong company. | |
| Mr Justice Edis ruled Taylor & Sons had proved that the reason it went into liquidation was because of an error made by Companies House. | Mr Justice Edis ruled Taylor & Sons had proved that the reason it went into liquidation was because of an error made by Companies House. |
| He also said the company was not consulted to enable it to challenge the mistake. | |
| "My finding on the causation issue shows that in this case that harm amounted to the destruction of a company which had traded for over 100 years and which owned a valuable business," he said. | "My finding on the causation issue shows that in this case that harm amounted to the destruction of a company which had traded for over 100 years and which owned a valuable business," he said. |
| However, this is only a preliminary judgement and the issue of damages still has to be resolved. | |
| Information corrected | Information corrected |
| The High Court had been told last November that it was claimed that the mistake led to the firm - which employed 250 people - going into administration. | The High Court had been told last November that it was claimed that the mistake led to the firm - which employed 250 people - going into administration. |
| Companies House contested the claim. | Companies House contested the claim. |
| At last year's hearing Clive Freedman QC told Mr Justice Edis that Companies House was in breach of its duty to Taylor & Sons Ltd when it made the mistake. | At last year's hearing Clive Freedman QC told Mr Justice Edis that Companies House was in breach of its duty to Taylor & Sons Ltd when it made the mistake. |
| The information was wrongly recorded on the companies register on 20 February and was corrected three days later on 23 February. | The information was wrongly recorded on the companies register on 20 February and was corrected three days later on 23 February. |
| Acting for the former co-owner, Philip Davison-Sebry, the barrister said that by the third day it was already too late, as it had already got around that the company was in trouble and the record remained elsewhere. | Acting for the former co-owner, Philip Davison-Sebry, the barrister said that by the third day it was already too late, as it had already got around that the company was in trouble and the record remained elsewhere. |
| Companies House contested the claim on the basis that it did not owe a duty of care to the company. | Companies House contested the claim on the basis that it did not owe a duty of care to the company. |
| It said that the publication was for such a short period of time that it could not have been the cause of the business failing. | It said that the publication was for such a short period of time that it could not have been the cause of the business failing. |
| Following the judgement, a Companies House spokesperson said it was considering its implications and could not comment further. |