UK legislation regarding an IBC

[pearce75]

Hi, this is in relation to the use of IBC in the UK. In the UK does an IBC have to display the IBC part in its name. I've searched the internet and cannot seem to get past the adverts for companies that set up IBCs. So if you had Joe Bloggs Limited that was an IBC registered in the Seychelles, in the UK, on applications forms,letterheads etc, does it have to display the IBC bit. Also if it puts its registered address as being in the UK, does this have to be registered at Companies House. thanks

[pearce75]

I would just add that this relates to a tribunal where the respondent has said its been placed against the wrong company.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I expect the forum guys will be along later today, when their day jobs permit. Would you mind explaining what IBC means please?

 

My best, HB

[pearce75]

Sure, IBC is international business company, an offshore company, in this case, i thought i was working for abc123xxx ltd but i was working for abc123xxx uk ltd which is a subcontractor to 123xxx ltd IBC.

[honeybee13]

Sure, IBC is international business company, an offshore company, in this case, i thought i was working for abc123xxx ltd but i was working for abc123xxx uk ltd which is a subcontractor to 123xxx ltd IBC.

 

Thank you. In case it's relevant, who is your contract with please?

 

HB

[pearce75]

Apparantly, its with abc123xxx uk ltd. What i want to know is, does abc123xxx IBC have to show it that way or can it show it as abc123xxx. I appreciate its a bit misleading but I think it has been done that way on purpose.

[honeybee13]

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I hope this will help the guys to advise you when they're able to get here.

 

If you have a written contract, does it show abc123 uk ltd or abc123 IBC please?

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

A UK subsidiary will be registered at Companies House and legal documents served at the registered address if no other address is offered. Now, if thsi is an employment issue and the company are saying you are employed by the IBC then that should be in the contract as it makes a difference to what tax and NI liabilities the company and the individual have. For example a large mining company having mines and businesses all over the world has its HQ in London and employes people via that office even though they have never set foot there so they are entitled to be treated as employed under UK legislation, even if they are in Papua New Guinea. What they put on their letterhead wont make any difference and nor will the country of domicile.

However, someone may be employed under a US contract and work in London and they have to take any legal action in the US, even though they have never been there. Multinationals use this to reduce their staffing levels worldwide by getting rid of the ones that are cheapest to dismiss.

I presume that this company are arguing that someone employed in the UK is subject to another country's laws or they are not subject to UK law. Probably not the case otherwise they wouldnt need the smokescreen.

[pearce75]

thank you for the reply, i was employed by abc123xxx (UK) ltd, no - they are not saying I was employed by the IBC. The "mistake" I made was to put abc123xxx Ltd on the claim form. The same person is the sole director of the (UK) company and appears to be the director of the IBC company.and has used the error to delay the tribunal, I have to live with that for now, the judge has asked me to clarify if I want to join abc123xxx(uk) ltd as a respondent instead of abc123xxx ltd. So I am hoping thats a good sign. What it has done is draw my attention to the fact that he is saying there are 2 companies. I can find the UK one registered with companies house. I cannot find the IBC one, using companies house webcheck. So its the first part of your answer that interest me, I want to check the legitimate state of the IBC company and what rules they have to comply to in the UK regarding displaying their name etc.

[ericsbrother]

Delaying tactic. If IBC is not listed in Companies House records then it is obvious who the respondent is. You named the person as respondent and other than delaying the obvious, I cannot see any benefit from arguing there is a difference. The tribunal chairman's patience may wear thin if that argument is pressed. On the other hand, a further delaying tactic may be arguing that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, again that one won't wash.

Name them both as you have that offer