Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. A227: Part 373, line 26, after ““individuals”” insert ““or corporate bodies (or both)”” The noble Lord said: Again, this deals with the provisions of Clause 789 and its conflict with the Business Names Act 1985. This part of the Bill contains provisions on restricted or prohibited names. Clause 789(2) provides a number of exceptions to the persons to whom the chapter applies, excluding businesses which in effect do not operate under a business name distinct from the names of its proprietors. Under the Business Names Act which the chapter replaces in part, the exceptions include a partnership not only of individuals, but also of bodies corporate or a mixture of the two. The exception is not included in the exceptions set out in Clause 789, and we suggest that there is no reason why it should not be as there is no logical distinction between a partnership of individuals and one of corporate bodies, or a mixture of the two; that is, so far as concerns misleading the public about the identity of the proprietors. It is also helpful to look at Clause 797(2)(b)(ii) which accommodates the partnerships of certain corporate bodies. Amendments Nos. A228 to A231, grouped with Amendment No. A227, all deal with the issue of permitted additions. Amendments Nos. A229 to A231 specify the permitted additions to a surname for the purpose of subsection (2). It allows, for example, the use by partners whose full names are Albert Baker Curtis or Derek Edward Fuller of the business names Curtis Fuller or Fuller Curtis, AB Curtis or DE Fuller, but not Albert B Curtis and Derek E Fuller, or Curtis and Fuller or Fuller and Curtis and so forth. We think that the exceptions here should be comprehensive. I beg to move.