Special Committee Registration of Business Names Bill, 1963 díospóireacht

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 7 :

In line 36 after " Act " to add " and of the names of all individuals registered under this Act as trading under a business name or as the director of a company ".

There must be an index kept at the moment but sometimes you require to know who the person is the reverse way around and it is virtually impossible to do it. If a man goes into a trader and orders goods, it is desirable that there should be some method of seeing if, in fact, he is the owner of a business or even the director of a company so that it would be known whether he is acting entirely on his own or as an agent for the firm or company.

Major de Valera

I would agree.

Mr. Sweetman

It may impose a bit of a job on the Registrar but it would be a worthwhile job to have a cross-index in both cases. Is the Minister proposing that the Registrar of Companies would in future take the registration of business names as well. I think the two of them should be kept in the same office.

Mr. J. Lynch

He does that at present and that will be the position henceforth.

Major de Valera

I wish to support Deputy Sweetman because at present search is extremely difficult whereas this would provide a ready means of getting the required information.

Mr. J. Lynch

This proposal goes outside the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to require people who trade under names not their own to register these names. Again there would be a vast field of activity which would not be covered by the proposed amendment. In Deputy Sweetman's example, if the person is trading under his own name he has no obligation to register under this branch of the law. In any event, in normal circumstances the trader would have to satisfy himself that he is dealing with a person who will be responsible for payment or for any other liability arising out of the sale of the goods. If the person comes in and orders goods of any quantity, the trader will ask him who he is and if the man replies: " I am John Murphy " and the trader asks : Who is John Murphy? and the person replies : " John Murphy of 129 Capel Street ", then the trader, I would say, will take the ordinary precaution to ensure that John Murphy of 129 Capel Street is a reliable person; if it is merely a business name he will find out who is behind the scene before he delivers the goods.

As Deputy Sweetman suggested, it would impose a rather heavy burden on the Registrar if he were to undertake responsibilities of registration from the other end; in other words, if he also had to register the name of every person, with full particulars, who is the proprietor of a name that is registered under the business names register. In any event there will be, in the ordinary registration procedure, sufficient particulars to enable the trader to pursue a registered person with whom he had dealings.

Major de Valera

In order to make the Bill effective, the purpose being to get at the people who are the real people behind the business names, it seems to me that you would want to have the other information. You already have the business name and how will you trace up the person who is behind the business name?

Mr. Sweetman

I do not see how it can be done without this

Major de Valera

On the other hand, I do not know that it will involve as much labour as the Minister pointed out. The registration forms would be completed. This is a register which will, in effect, be starting from scratch, or a provision could be inserted to the effect that this is starting from scratch, that it applies only from the date on which this Bill comes into operation. There will not be so many applications that the Registrar would be swamped by the double entry on each form and it is not an unreasonable request that this register be kept in that way.

Chairman

I think the Minister is correct in what he says that this is going outside the spirit of the Bill. It may be a very desirable thing to have from the business point of view but in fact if you want to get information as to what businesses a person is connected with, that is going outside the spirit of this Bill altogether.

Major de Valera

Maybe so if you put it that way. But the principle of this Bill is that if anybody trades under a name that is not his own, and that includes a body corporate, that name will be registered in order that, when necessary, process and execution may issue against the real person behind the business name. That is the purpose of the Bill and in order to make that purpose practically effective from a solicitor's point of view——

Mr. Sweetman

From the client's point of view.

Major de Valera

Yes. It is not sufficient to know that that name was registered. As far as the client is concerned that name was there anyway. Mere registration of the name brings no benefit to him. What is important is that he gets at the person behind the registered name. What Deputy Sweetman is suggesting in this amendment is that if you had a double register, a cross reference register that, at the moment of registration, as well as registering the business and the particulars, the principals colaterally would be registered so that they would be easy to get at.

Chairman

I think this is looking for a little too much. If you deal with an individual, which is the case that Deputy Sweetman has in mind, you are dealing with an individual using his own name. It is not right that the law should provide the facility of finding out very easily what his other businesses are. In dealing with the individual inquiries can be made and if the person inquiring is not satisfied he does not deal with the individual. The principle of this Bill is that where a name is being dealt with which is not the individual's own name it should be possible to find out who the individual is but this amendment is putting the reverse case.

Major de Valera

Is it not desirable, in order to sew up the whole measure, that the reverse should be there? It is conceivable that the person who is trading in his own name may also be ringing the changes on the business name.

Mr. Gallagher

I think it is going too far and that no useful purpose will be served by this amendment. The only purpose I can see in this is that it will make it easier for a trader, when a person goes into a shop and says he is, say, James Gallagher, to consult a cross reference register to find out the businesses with which the person is associated. I suggest it is going too far.

Mr. J. Lynch

You might as well go a step further and register the manager of the business.

Major de Valera

I think the consensus of opinion is against Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

It seems to be against me but I should like to see the amendment in.

Chairman

I should like to see it as a solicitor.

Mr. J. Lynch

I think it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

It amounts to the fact that the Minister is not going to do my work for me.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not like to say that.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 8 :

Before section 14, to insert a new section as follows :—

" (1) A person carrying on business under a business name which is not registered may at the option of the plaintiff be sued under such business name and service of a summons or other originating document or any other document in legal proceedings may be served either upon the person so carrying on business by sending the same addressed to the person under the business name or upon any person having at the time of the service control or management of the business at the place where it is carried on and such service shall be good service upon the person so sued whether the person is out of the jurisdiction or not and no leave to issue the summons or other originating document shall be necessary.

(2) Where a plaintiff sues a person under his business name, he may apply to the Court for an Order directing any person or persons named in that order in the employment of the business to furnish on oath the name and address of the person carrying on the business at the time of the accruing of the cause of action and verified on oath or otherwise as the Court may direct."

There is a drafting mistake in the amendment. Subsection (2) should read : " Where under subsection (1) hereof . . ." It applies to a case where a person is sued under a business name, as such, and not under his own name. It is quite vital for the purposes of the Bill that there should be some method by which you can sue a person, or a firm, carrying on business under a business name. If you cannot do that, the whole Bill will be as useless as the present Act. The present Registration of Business Names Act is useless in perhaps 50 per cent of the cases that come up for examination in the ordinary way by solicitors or members of the public. The position will be the same if this Bill has not same teeth in it and this is the only way I can see of putting teeth in it.

Major de Valera

It is too sweeping. Deputy Sweetman has not allowed for a big firm such as Lucozade where there is almost exclusion of the parent name. There could even be cases where the original name was suppressed because it was out of date.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not understand.

Major de Valera

We want to bring the responsibility on the firm that is involved. It will be disclosed under the Business Names Register——

Mr. Sweetman

If it is registered.

Chairman

This amendment would apply only where it is not registered.

Major de Valera

I beg your pardon.

Mr. Sweetman

If I find that Patrick Murphy & Son of 128 Capel Street owes my client money — someone is trading under the name of Patrick Murphy & Son; it is written over the door— and I go down to the office and find there is no Patrick Murphy & Son on the register, I can sue Patrick Murphy & Son and attach the goods belonging to that firm. I must say I think the amendment would give teeth to the Bill.

Major de Valera

I misunderstood.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it is very worthwhile. I am very keen on it.

Mr. J. Lynch

I agree generally with Deputy Sweetman in the purpose he desires to achieve but in effect this means deeming a service good. I am advised that the purpose he desires to achieve is outside the scope of the Bill. It is certainly outside the scope of the Long Title. So far as there is any defect in the present position, it should be remedied not in this Bill but in some other way. For example, the Courts of Justice have made rules dealing with matters of this kind. We all know there have been legal arguments as to whether a service is good or whether documents which have been served should have been served. These are matters which I think should be covered by a rule-making committee. So far as there are any defects in the present procedure, they should be dealt with outside the scope of this Bill, perhaps directly by the Minister for Justice but certainly not under a Registration of Business Names Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Minister has shot me down. I must accept that it is outside the scope of the Long Title and should have been ruled out of order by the Chair.

Chiarman

The Chair did consider this question and, though with some hesitation, came to the conclusion that the amendment was within the scope of the Bill as read a second time. It could be regarded as coming within the Long Title though, if necessary the Long Title could be amended.

Mr. Sweetman

Can you amend the Long Title? I thought you could not. Yes, I see. Why put the Long Title otherwise?

Chairman

I must say that my own view is, like Deputy Sweetman's, that this is the keystone of the whole Bill. The object of the Bill is—I think the primary object—to ensure that persons who are carrying on business under names other than their own names are made amenable to the processes of the law in so far as they are dealing with other people in the trade. The purposes of the Bill are set at nought in many cases for lack of a provision such as the one proposed by Deputy Sweetman.

Special Committee Registration of Business Names Bill, 1963 díospóireacht - Friday, 12 Jul 1963

SECTION 13.

Chiarman

Special Committee Registration of Business Names Bill, 1963 díospóireacht -
Friday, 12 Jul 1963