I Won My Tribunal But They Won't Pay

[steampowered]

Regarding the costs decision: I also included time spent in court last year, which was after the company had ceased to exist. Of this, the Registrar wrote "I have jurisdiction only to consider the costs incurred in this court in the appeal lodged on 3rd July 2013. If the Respondent wishes to claim costs in the employment tribunal, he must make an application to that tribunal." Can I still do that? If so, how do I go about it?

What court/tribunal hearing do these costs relate to?

 

Regarding "Time to seek an order that he attends court for questioning in his capacity as a former director of the company for questioning about the company's assets?": Are you talking about trying to get the £17K that the company owes me transferred to him? Or are you speaking about having him perhaps getting some sort of fine for his behaviour?"

 

Thanks, gents.

Neither, it would just be an attempt to get information about what happened to the assets of the company.

[Hair Bear]

I'm now in a position to begin civil proceedings against the person (the directing mind) whose company was deemed to owe me money, but was struck off companies house. Before I leap in, obviously I need to find out if he has money, presumably in his property, so would like to know how I might go about finding out how to do this? Thanks.

[citizenB]

I'm now in a position to begin civil proceedings against the person (the directing mind) whose company was deemed to owe me money, but was struck off companies house. Before I leap in, obviously I need to find out if he has money, presumably in his property, so would like to know how I might go about finding out how to do this? Thanks.

 

I think you need to make an application for the court to order him to attend court for questioning about his assets. I will leave a message for steampowered for you.

[citizenB]

PS. I think steampowered already mentioned this in an earlier court. I think.. this might be what you are looking for, but I would wait until steampowered responds.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part71/pd_part71

[p3t3r]

I'm now in a position to begin civil proceedings against the person (the directing mind) whose company was deemed to owe me money, but was struck off companies house. Before I leap in, obviously I need to find out if he has money, presumably in his property, so would like to know how I might go about finding out how to do this? Thanks.

 

I don't understand? The company was struck off companies house? This would have been a limited company?

 

Unless the director of the company has given you some personal guarantee, then I feel that there is nothing you can do.

 

The company now does not legally exist. Any debts of the company have disappeared with the company.

 

That is my opinion, I hope I am either wrong or someone can explain how you can obtain money from a company which no longer exists, been struck off, dissolved etc...

[Hair Bear]

PS. I think steampowered already mentioned this in an earlier court. I think.. this might be what you are looking for, but I would wait until steampowered responds.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part71/pd_part71

 

 

Great stuff, in that this would have been the exact answer to my next "what is the procedure?" question. Before I do any of this, though, I need to find out if any of this is worth bothering with. I'm pretty sure that I can win the case (we can discus that soon), but it's pointless trying to if the person I'm targeting doesn't have any money. So I need to find out what credit he has, by which I mean discovering how much cash he's got invested in his house. Apparently solicitors can find that out, so I'm just asking how I might go about it in the cheapest way possible.

[Hair Bear]

I don't understand? The company was struck off companies house? This would have been a limited company?

 

Unless the director of the company has given you some personal guarantee, then I feel that there is nothing you can do.

 

The company now does not legally exist. Any debts of the company have disappeared with the company.

 

That is my opinion, I hope I am either wrong or someone can explain how you can obtain money from a company which no longer exists, been struck off, dissolved etc...

 

 

From what I have been told, the debt can, via a civil court action, legally be transferred to the "directing mind" (the person who did me wrong). In this instance my case is strong, as the directing mind was also the company owner, the company director, and the company secretary. I'm confident I can prove that he purposely had his company struck off in order to avoid paying me money.

[p3t3r]

hi, I am curious - who or what has told you that you can take court action and legally transfer the debt to the director?

 

I was under the impression that a director of a limited company could not be pursued for any debts if the company had ceased trading / dissolved etc, that is unless the director has provided some sort of personal guarantee that they are responsible for the debt.

 

Sorry I can't be of any help to you.

[Hair Bear]

I'm pretty sure that it was discussed, albeit briefly, on this thread.

[steampowered]

Hi and welcome back!

 

The previous advice in post 33 remains valid.The basic position is that you cannot sue a director or shareholder personally in relation to a debt owed by his company. However, there are some exceptions to this.

 

A company's creditors are supposed to be paid when the company is wound up. If the company is insolvent; creditors are supposed to receive a proportion of what they are due, and if the company is insolvent the creditors have to be paid before anything gets paid to the company's shareholders. The fact that this didn't happen means he breached his legal duties as a director of the company.

 

If he took a company asset (such as the bar) and transferred it to be in his own name and then wound up the company without paying creditors, that would be a fraudulent transfer and you can hold him liable for that under s423 of the Insolvency Act. s212 does something fairly similar (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/212). If you don't have sufficient information on what assets the company had and where they went then consider seeking an order that he attend court for questioning.

 

Its worth you reading through this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431614-Enforcing-a-CCJ-against-a-Limited-company&highlight=423. It is a very similar case, although the risk profile for that one is lower as his case is below 10k and hence treated as a small claim (and so he is unlikely to be have to pay the other side's legal costs if he loses the case).

[Hair Bear]

Thanks, Steampowered. I'll print everything out and start reading up.

[Hair Bear]

Its worth you reading through this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431614-Enforcing-a-CCJ-against-a-Limited-company&highlight=423. It is a very similar case, although the risk profile for that one is lower as his case is below 10k and hence treated as a small claim (and so he is unlikely to be have to pay the other side's legal costs if he loses the case).

 

I've now read through this, thanks, and (since legalities are still very gobbledygook to me) have some questions:

 

1) As similar as Colin's case is, doesn't the fact that the company in my case being struck off make a difference to my course of action?

2) Is 10K a threshold of whether something is small claims?

3) You say that, because something is small claims, it is unlikely that you will have to pay the other sides costs. Is this the only requirement? Meaning, if a millionaire puts in a claim for 9K he won't have to pay the others side's cost if he loses, but if someone is on disability payments (so is poor) and claims for 11K, if he loses he will be liable for costs?

4) If it's a case that "yes, you will be liable for costs if you lose no matter what your financial circumstances if it's over 10K", if you are owed 17K can you just claim for only 9.9K? (You might be throwing away 7.5K if you win, but you're prepared to lose that against an insurance of not having to pay costs, sort of thing.)

[steampowered]

I've now read through this, thanks, and (since legalities are still very gobbledygook to me) have some questions:

 

1) As similar as Colin's case is, doesn't the fact that the company in my case being struck off make a difference to my course of action?

I don't think it makes a difference. You'd be relying on the same basic legal arguments.

 

I actually think that legally you are in a slightly better position than Colin because, as I understand it, you know that the bar used to be owned by the company and was then sold to a relative. This looks dodgy and if the company did not receive a proper amount in exchange for the bar then it begins to look like a transaction defrauding creditors. Did you ever check who owns the bar on the land registry?

2) Is 10K a threshold of whether something is small claims?

Yes.

3) You say that, because something is small claims, it is unlikely that you will have to pay the other sides costs. Is this the only requirement? Meaning, if a millionaire puts in a claim for 9K he won't have to pay the others side's cost if he loses, but if someone is on disability payments (so is poor) and claims for 11K, if he loses he will be liable for costs?

Yes, that is correct. The general rule is that for small claims less than 10k, no costs are awarded (except against a side who has behaved unreasonably). For claims more than 10k, the general rule is that then loser must pay the winner's costs. It doesn't make a difference whether you have a high income or not.

4) If it's a case that "yes, you will be liable for costs if you lose no matter what your financial circumstances if it's over 10K", if you are owed 17K can you just claim for only 9.9K? (You might be throwing away 7.5K if you win, but you're prepared to lose that against an insurance of not having to pay costs, sort of thing.)

Yes, in principle I think that is correct. In principle if the amount in dispute is less than 10k it will be treated as a small claim. In an extreme case you might not get away with obviously gaming the system though as the judge does have wriggleroom if he thinks one side is acting unreasonably.

[Hair Bear]

Yes, I checked with the Land Registry. It doesn't give a person's name for the owner of the property, only a company. A check on that company gives no name as a director, but I'm guessing that he doesn't own it. The bar is situated in a huge building with other bars and many flats, all leased by whomsoever owns the building. I doubt that he would have the kind of money to buy that, and since the previous owner of the bar rented the property, I'm therefore assuming it's still rented.

 

 

Regarding "In an extreme case you might not get away with obviously gaming the system": Can you expand on "extreme case", please. Thank you.

[steampowered]

You should be able to find out who are the directors and shareholders of that company by downloading its annual return from 'Companies House Direct'. It should only cost 1pound to download (don't be ripped off by the websites that just download the same information from Companies House but charge you a tenner for the privilege). If the company is just the landlord (and nothing to do with your former employer) then it won't really help you.

 

Regarding "In an extreme case you might not get away with obviously gaming the system": Can you expand on "extreme case", please. Thank you.

It is very difficult to speculate. The key point is that judges have discretion to award costs against people who 'behave unreasonably' in the small claims track. If a judge thinks you are taking the mickey then he is able to punish you for it.

 

Choosing to (for example) pursue only a claim worth 9k and choosing not to pursue a related claim worth 6k, in order to keep under 10k, would be legitimate. Trying to make two separate claims (one for 9k and one for 6k) would be seen as taking the mickey and lead to costs consequences. Artificially reducing a claim from say 15k to 9k is a bit more of a grey area but probably still OK as long as you don't try to sneakily claim the 6k by the back door.

[Hair Bear]

According to the Land Registry, the establishment's owner is called (a pseudonym) 'Quick Systems', but Quick Systems (or, rather, the real name) doesn't register on Company's House or Company Check. However, when one goes on Endole, when you type in 'Quick Systems' it gives you several companies all registered at Quick Systems head office address (different to the bar). A couple of these are limited companies, and a quick check on those reveals that none are my director.

 

Regarding sub-10K or over: It seems my choice is to either ask for the full 17K or plump for sub-10K. Going for the 17K would mean my case is so strong I couldn't lose. If I decided on sub-10K, then rest assured I would not be attempting to get the balance (right now I have nothing, so ten grand would be a great victory). This brings up two questions:

 

Currently I am leaning towards sub-10K. I believe my case is strong enough to challenge for the 17K but, as you know, the opposition has a history of being able to wriggle out of things and I'm worried I might get stuck with a bill. Any thoughts about the strength of my case?

 

If I do go sub-10K, is 9.99K feasible or does it have to be a round figure? Thanks in advance.

[Pusillanimous]

Go £17K plus statutory interest. How can you lose? You have the ET Remedy Order and the EAT Judgment.

[Hair Bear]

Go £17K plus statutory interest. How can you lose? You have the ET Remedy Order and the EAT Judgment.

 

 

Hi, Pusillanimous. My worry is that (a) the opposition is very slippery and, despite my thinking I had this won four years ago, as a consequence I've still not won anything. Additionally (b), steampower's earlier "I think it is doable by a dedicated litigant in person who puts in the hours to understand the court process". I'm not nearly smart enough nor skilled enough to live up to that criteria. As such, I can see me being outsmarted at some point.

[stu007]

Hi Hair Bear

 

Did the Pub by any chance have a website at the time?

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear

 

Did the Pub by any chance have a website at the time?

 

 

Yes, they've always had one and still do.

[stu007]

Okay a search it is.

 

Copy and paste the website link (i.e. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) into this :

 

whoisdomaintools link: http://whois.domaintools.com/

 

See what info comes up

[Hair Bear]

Okay a search it is.

 

Copy and paste the website link (i.e. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) into this :

 

whoisdomaintools link: http://whois.domaintools.com/

 

See what info comes up

 

 

Very interesting link, thank you. In this instance, only the name of the original owner is given, although it also says "We have 2 historical records for [the website]" and "There are at least 2 significant changes". But there doesn't appear to be any other information or ability to access further info

[stu007]

Shame that but was worth a try.

 

will pm you

[steampowered]

Given the amounts involved and given that this is not a totally straightforward case, I think you should speak to a litigation solicitor about this one, perhaps suggesting they took a look at s212 and s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. They may be able to take your case on a no-win-no-fee basis and you would be able to recover much of the cost from the other side if successful.

 

I'm not sure about the idea of just claiming 9k or so on a 17k claim. I suspect that probably would keep you in small claims track but I don't guarantee it.

[Pusillanimous]

Why not go for High Court enforcement (a Statutory Demand? That way, the guy gets no notice until two burly enforcement officers turn up on his step. Cost is quite moderate, which you get back.

 

"Can't pay? We'll take it away!"