Can A Different LTD Company Sue Me?

[R1 Indy]

Basically i completed a small bit of work (around £200) for a LTD company back in April 2014, he was happy with the work and paid, then he decided he wasn't happy and came out with loads of non issues trying to get a refund.

I decided he was a nightmare so just ignored him, he sent me a load of emails threatening me with court etc, i ignored them on the theory if he did actually take me to court i would challenge it.

I then never heard from him again.


I recently had another email from him last week stating he is starting legal proceedings for the cost of the installation plus compensation!

However this email was from a different company name, as well as the email footing showing a different name, with nothing relating to the original company i completed the work for.

I also received by post Today (2nd class stamp) a copy of this email with a hand written note stating, " if you do not respond, i will drive down to your premises and hand deliver"

After a bit of googling, it appears the company i did the work for has applied for "proposal to be strike off"

I have also found a website detailing all his failed companies and conned contractors/employees. here if anyone wants a read" https://apricotcateringreviews.wordpress.com

It also appears he is banned from being a company director, hence his wife being the director etc.


Now i assume he can't attempt to sue me with a different company to which i did the work for?

And can he attempt to sue me with the original company that is about to be strike off.

Also all correspondence has been with himself, and obviously he should not be in control of either company.



So my question:

Am i safe to just ignore him?

Am i safe to send him an email telling him to go fk himself and to take me to court.

Anything else useful?


Cheers

[imagineifyeswill]

Im no lawyer but reading this post and that website frankly I dont think this claim would ever get near any court. It sounds to me like he,s all wind and piss.

[anonymous-user]

do nothing for now

let him come and hand deliver his email if he wants to

I suspect he might do that, but I suspect he won't start a claim for £200 in the circumstances

Unless and until you see a claim, you don't know what your response is going to be. But, if it is from a different company, it won't be easy for the claim to make much progress IMO

[rsv gone!]

Your contract was with the ltd company. Was it Alimento Dining?

There is an application to wind down the company for unknown reasons - maybe by the directors, to avoid paying creditors??

I reckon you were lucky to get your money, given the history of his other companies.

I'd ignore him. Only respond as and when you're contacted by the receiver.

[rsv gone!]

Red Devil's response disappeared.

[Red Devil]

If he is banned from being a director he can't do much. It will be his wife claiming (it will be brought by the company, not her personally). If you had no contract with the company issuing the claim (I assume you have documentary evidence of which one you did) I can't see the judge allowing it.

Conversely the judge won't be impressed by your refusal to respond. I would consider writing to reject the request for compensation with reasons (be polite: intemperate language doesn't go down well with a judge and you will need to produce any documents on which you intend to rely). Don't reveal your trump card - that you are aware that the claim may about to be brought by the wrong entity.

If he thinks he has a case and cracks on then your defence is that you never contracted with XYZ Ltd. If the claim is reissued and he is clearly flying a kite (he may well be desperate to get whatver money he can) then you might be able to apply for the claim to be struck out as being without merit.

The proliferation of trading names (i.e. XYZ Ltd t/a ABC) doesn't help. It appears the guy is a chancer who likes to screw people over and this web of different names is central to his strategy. You're never quite sure which entity you're dealing with.

IANAL and only you know the full facts so it's difficult to give a definitive answer.

rsv gone! said:

Your contract was with the ltd company. Was it Alimento Dining?

There is an application to wind down the company for unknown reasons - maybe by the directors, to avoid paying creditors??

I reckon you were lucky to get your money, given the history of his other companies.

I'd ignore him. Only respond as and when you're contacted by the receiver.

Is there any evidence of the company the OP contracted with being in receivership and a liquidator apppointed? If so then, yes the liquidator will be the one bringing the claim. For such a small disputed amount I think that is very unlikely. If there is no receivership there is nothing to stop the company bringing a claim prior to dissolution as it still has a legal existence. In which case the OP can't wait in the hope that a receiver will materialise in the meantime.

Edited to remove a load of superfluous text!

Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 18th June 00:43

[R1 Indy]

Thanks Red Devil, Yes RSV it is Alimento.

I have also noticed there are no directors listed, as it appears his wife resigned as director in april.

[JustinP1]

I concur with Red Devil, however, IMHO the situation is very much more simple.


If you did work for XYZ Ltd, then only XYZ Ltd can sue you.

If ABC Ltd sues you then your defence is:

1) The claim is denied in its entirety as the Defendant has never had contractual relations with the Claimant.


The reality is though he is all bluff and bluster. If you file court papers, then the court services them, for free. However, he'd have to pay the court £30 to file the claim anyway.

What he's trying to do is make you jump at the thought of him turning up.

My advice would be to do nothing. Red Devil's advice is correct in that the court would like you to discuss the case with the other party. However, that does not alter the decision of the court, and, importantly, you are under no obligation (and indeed it would be wrong) to discuss a dispute with XYZ Ltd with the officers of ABC Ltd.

Lastly, if you defend the claim, it costs you absolutely nothing. If the chap wants to go to a hearing he'll have to pay for that on top of the filing fee. And that won't be for 6 months - by which time the Ltd co will be closed.

[Red Devil]

JustinP1 said:

My advice would be to do nothing. Red Devil's advice is correct in that the court would like you to discuss the case with the other party. However, that does not alter the decision of the court, and, importantly, you are under no obligation (and indeed it would be wrong) to discuss a dispute with XYZ Ltd with the officers of ABC Ltd.

Good point. I hadn't considered that.

I reckon Mr **** enjoys bullying people and like most such is full of s.
Does he own a boat? If so, perhaps he will sufffer the same fate as the late Robert Maxwell...

[flemke]

JustinP1 said:

If you did work for XYZ Ltd, then only XYZ Ltd can sue you.

I'm just curious on one point:

Is a claim a contingent asset of XYZ that could be sold or, in the case of bankruptcy, pursued by XYZ's creditors or the receiver?

[Jasandjules]

Just write back to him and state that you are unaware of any contractual relationship with XYZ (the new company writing to you) and accordingly given the Data Protection Act you are unable to discuss any matters relating to any other Limited company.

[JustinP1]

flemke said:

JustinP1 said:

If you did work for XYZ Ltd, then only XYZ Ltd can sue you.

I'm just curious on one point:

Is a claim a contingent asset of XYZ that could be sold or, in the case of bankruptcy, pursued by XYZ's creditors or the receiver?

I know that in the bankruptcy of an individual that this is a possibility.

However, the Official Receiver has to assess whether continuing an ongoing claim is worthwhile in terms of costs and risk. Starting a claim from scratch is something that is less likely. Of course, should the Official Receiver start a claim for say £5000, either way, that claim might end up costing £1500 in legal costs. If the claim was lost, then the people owed money from the estate are left with less.

[flemke]

JustinP1 said:

flemke said:

JustinP1 said:

If you did work for XYZ Ltd, then only XYZ Ltd can sue you.

I'm just curious on one point:

Is a claim a contingent asset of XYZ that could be sold or, in the case of bankruptcy, pursued by XYZ's creditors or the receiver?

I know that in the bankruptcy of an individual that this is a possibility.

However, the Official Receiver has to assess whether continuing an ongoing claim is worthwhile in terms of costs and risk. Starting a claim from scratch is something that is less likely. Of course, should the Official Receiver start a claim for say £5000, either way, that claim might end up costing £1500 in legal costs. If the claim was lost, then the people owed money from the estate are left with less.

Makes sense.

What I had in mind was that - in theory - the claim against the OP might have been legitimately transferred or sold on from his client the first limited company to a third party limited company.

[JustinP1]

flemke said:

JustinP1 said:

flemke said:

JustinP1 said:

If you did work for XYZ Ltd, then only XYZ Ltd can sue you.

I'm just curious on one point:

Is a claim a contingent asset of XYZ that could be sold or, in the case of bankruptcy, pursued by XYZ's creditors or the receiver?

I know that in the bankruptcy of an individual that this is a possibility.

However, the Official Receiver has to assess whether continuing an ongoing claim is worthwhile in terms of costs and risk. Starting a claim from scratch is something that is less likely. Of course, should the Official Receiver start a claim for say £5000, either way, that claim might end up costing £1500 in legal costs. If the claim was lost, then the people owed money from the estate are left with less.

Makes sense.

What I had in mind was that - in theory - the claim against the OP might have been legitimately transferred or sold on from his client the first limited company to a third party limited company.

In theory, I guess that may be technically possible, however, again, it's a situation as is it really a case of a contractual debt being sold? I'd say not, this is simply a very minor dispute.

The other hurdle would be with the very basic defence I've drafted it would then be up to ABC Ltd to demonstrate that there was a debt and it was formally reassigned.

Otherwise, the situation is good old fashioned privity of contract. A Ltd Co is a separate legal entity in itself. In short, the chap's new Ltd Co has no more right to sue the OP for what happened to his old Ltd Co than I or you do.

IMHO it is highly unlikely that the chap will file papers. If he does the papers are likely to be fatally flawed. If they are not, his old company would need to still exist in 6 months time to come to court.

Then, after all that, he'd need to win the claim...!

[jimbobs]

Jasandjules said:

Just write back to him and state that you are unaware of any contractual relationship with XYZ (the new company writing to you) and accordingly given the Data Protection Act you are unable to discuss any matters relating to any other Limited company.

For clarity, the DPA only offers protection to individuals, not limited companies, so this probably ins't the best approach to take...

[flemke]

jimbobs said:

Jasandjules said:

Just write back to him and state that you are unaware of any contractual relationship with XYZ (the new company writing to you) and accordingly given the Data Protection Act you are unable to discuss any matters relating to any other Limited company.

For clarity, the DPA only offers protection to individuals, not limited companies, so this probably ins't the best approach to take...

Could the OP not turn it around by saying that that DPA protects him and he would like to know the basis on which the new company purports to have private information about him?

[flemke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed.

And the alternative to "hand deliver in person" would be what - "Hand deliver by chimpanzee"?

[colinjy]

sounds like one of my old bosses ( I did have to check the name )

can the OP if this did get filed and end up in front of a judge counter claim for time wasted (I mean spent) dealing with this ?

[Jasandjules]

jimbobs said:

For clarity, the DPA only offers protection to individuals, not limited companies, so this probably ins't the best approach to take...

He would be prevented from disclosing details of the arrangement with Company A to Company B.

[Jasandjules]

colinjy said:

sounds like one of my old bosses ( I did have to check the name )

can the OP if this did get filed and end up in front of a judge counter claim for time wasted (I mean spent) dealing with this ?

You can go one better, make an application for Summary Judgment before it is allocated to the small claim track, then you can get full costs.