These two probing amendments would provide a new mechanism for restoring a struck-off company to the register. I note that subsection (3) says that an application
“may only be made by a former director or former member of the company.”
Will the Minister explain why? Why should a creditor or litigant, or the relative or beneficiary of the will of a former director or member, not have the same right?
The answer is simply that we are introducing a new administrative procedure recommended by the company law review. It will in no way prevent people from using the courts to pursue their rights in other ways. If one tried to extend the right to relatives or other people, definitions would become extremely difficult. We chose to use easy administrative procedures for former directors or members and not to extend the law beyond that, allowing court procedures for other cases.
I hear what the Minister is saying. In practice, it is a rapid procedure that works well for shell companies or companies with no liabilities. However, at times, companies can still be left with assets or liabilities, and creditors can be left short. I appreciate that other mechanisms that can be used, and I thought that they might be pulled together, but on the basis of what she said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.