TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows correction of company name in winding-up petition without re-advertisement.</h1> The court granted the petition by Arthur Maiden Ltd. to wind up the company, J. & P. Sussmann Ltd., despite the misspelling in the original petition. ... Publication of name of company Issues:- Mis-spelt company name in winding-up petition- Company's failure to enter appearance correctly- Request for amendment to correct the company name- Jurisdiction to allow amendment without re-advertisementAnalysis:The judgment involves a petition by Arthur Maiden Ltd. to wind up a company, originally misspelt as 'J. & P. Sussman Ltd.' instead of the correct name 'J. & P. Sussmann Ltd.' The mistake in the company name arose from the innocent error of the petitioners. The defendant company failed to enter appearance correctly, further complicating the matter. Another creditor, closely associated with the company, objected to any amendment to rectify the error, claiming the petition should be treated as null. However, the judge held that the company's choice to adopt the misspelt name prevented them from challenging the winding-up order against the correct name.The judge referred to a previous case to establish jurisdiction for amendment. Following the precedent set by Astbury J., it was determined that minor errors in spelling, where no confusion arises, can be rectified without re-advertisement. The judge found similarities between the current error and the precedent, allowing for the petition to be amended to correct the company name and the judgment reference. This decision was based on the discretion granted under the Companies (Winding up) Rules, 1909.Consequently, the judge granted the amendment to correct the misspelt name in the petition and issued a winding-up order against the company, J. & P. Sussmann Ltd. The judge relied on the authority of the previous case to justify the amendment without the need for re-advertisement. The petition was treated as amended, and the original order for winding up the company was upheld. The judge also clarified that re-advertisement was unnecessary in this scenario and denied the leave to appear requested by the other creditor.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
