Summons refusal, When is payment due

[tesla6518]

A friend of mine has received the attached after submitting forms for a private prosecution.

He admits that he has made the mistake of putting "for the requester use only" and that would invalidate the request, however what he cannot get his head around is the highlighted section.

The judge has said that the payment should have been sent with the request, however it is only a request to inspect the register of members, which would involve the other party supplying a date and time to inspect the register and the Act states that the register must be open to non-members of the company on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

The second highlight is also a concern, both defendants are directors of the company, what is meant by the words "Nothing is provided to establish that either proposed defendant falls into the definition in section 118(1)(b) of “every officer of the company who is in default”. A further essential ingredient of the offence is missing. Surely if the request is ignored or refused then the directors have committed the offence.


Can any one offer an opinions on this

[atticus]

Sorry, but I agree with the judge on the first highlighted point. The prescribed fee should accompany the request. s117 covers what the company should do on receiving such a request.

As to the second point, was evidence provided that the proposed defendants are (a) officers of the company, and (b) all the officers of the company? A printout of the appropriate page of the Companies House record should suffice. NB s118 provides that the offence is committed by the company and every officer. Was the company also named as a defendant?