JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MINING-HISTORY Archives


MINING-HISTORY Archives

MINING-HISTORY Archives


MINING-HISTORY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MINING-HISTORY Home

MINING-HISTORY Home

MINING-HISTORY  May 2018

MINING-HISTORY May 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: company names

From:

king peter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The mining-history list.

Date:

Sun, 13 May 2018 16:36:59 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

I suspect you will find that one of the numbers is the official company number.  The Companies Act does not allow two companies to have the same name at the same time.  The current practice for "phoenix" companies is to change the name of the old company, freeing up the old name for the new company.  The older practice was for the new company to have a slightly different name, in this case by including "(1916)".  It has always been possible for a company to change its name by special resolution.  This has to be registered at Companies House, after which the Registrar issues a Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name.  After this, the name written on the outside of the file would naturally be the new name and that is what TNA (or PRO) would list when the file reached them.   

I think TNA has files on all Companies Act companies incorporated before a certain date, not merely defunct ones.  

Peter King

> On 12 May 2018 at 16:01 Andy Cuckson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> No, Mike, it's direct from the original BT file in the National Archives at Kew, where the special resolution is recorded.
> My notes are about 20 years old, which is probably before anything of this ilk was on line.
> Perhaps as the National Archive accepted all these files after the businesses were defunct, in such cases as this the last names in use became their identifiers at their new home.
> I don't know where it is now, but years ago there was an old hand-written register at Companies House by which you could get the BT file number if you had the correct name of the company. It might be that the register has at a minimum the original "(1916)" name against the correct number - maybe a second entry or a correction for the new name.
> Regards,
> Andy
> 
> On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:37:06 EEST, margaret and michael shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Gents,
> thanks for the explanations. I clearly have not found the right sites to
> search, though I am slightly puzzled as to why the NA have no entry for the
> company with (1916) in its name, and I would have supposed that the change
> would have been noted in the London Gazette. I obviously need to do more
> research on company names, is the information on the date of the company's
> change of names from an online source?
> Mike Shaw
> 
> On 11 May 2018 at 17:01, Roy Fellows <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Company law has been subject to change over time. I have come across
> > instances of two different companies (19th Cent) with the same name, a
> > later company having the same name as an earlier one. This would not be
> > allowed today as companies remain on the register even after they are
> > dissolved. The company name is as it appears on the company register and
> > reproduced on the Certificate of Incorporation.
> > My question is are you sure that it is one and the same company?
> > It occurs that the parenthesised year could have been used to distinguish
> > one from the other. Again, this would not be allowed today, Companies House
> > would reject the application. Things are a lot tighter nowadays.
> > 
> > The name of the company is everything that appears before the "Ltd" being
> > an abbreviation for "Limited"
> > 
> > Apart from this, sorry cannot be of any more help.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > margaret and michael shaw
> > Sent: 11 May 2018 15:14
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: company names
> > 
> > rather a tenuous link to mining history, but ... When reference was made to
> > the formation of Shropshire Mines Limited in 1917 the London Gazette
> > referred to it as Shropshire Mines (1916) Limited, the National Archives
> > BT31 file 23508/145661 refers to the company just as Shropshire Mines
> > Limited, what is the standing of the (1916)? I am sure that I have come
> > across concerns where an absence of dates or the presence of dates in
> > brackets have distinguished successor companies, presumably in these cases
> > the date would be part of the company's legal name. In the lack of an
> > idiot's guide to company law can anyone help please.
> > Mike Shaw
> > 
> > If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
> > [log in to unmask] -
> > 
> > leave mining-history
> > 
> > ---------
> > 
> > If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
> > [log in to unmask] -
> > 
> > leave mining-history
> > 
> > ---------
> 
> If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
> 
> leave mining-history
> 
> ---------
> 
> If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
> 
> leave mining-history
> 
> ---------

If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -

leave mining-history
---------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager