One spelling error costs Companies House up to £9 million after being sued for ruining business

One spelling error costs Companies House up to £9 million after being sued for ruining business

Companies House denied liability for the consequences of 'devastating' mistake

A single spelling error has caused an 124-year-old Welsh family business to collapse – and cost the government £9 million in legal bills.

A High Court ruling has found that Companies House was to blame after an engineering firm called Taylor & Sons, which was based in Cardiff and supplied military equipment during two world wars, was recorded as having been in liquidation.

In fact, Companies House had inserted a rogue "s" and the actual company that had been wound up six years ago was based 200 miles away in Manchester called Taylor and Son.

Philip Davison-Sebry sued Companies House for “false publication” after at least 250 people lost their jobs with the firm.

Companies House – an agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – and the chief registrar of the government body had denied liability for the mistake.

Lawyers for Taylor & Sons told Mr Justice Edis that the business suffered “devastating” consequences as all of their credit agencies and 3,000 suppliers had revoked their services after seeing the Companies House notice claiming the firm had folded.

The news broke to the former managing director of the company while he was celebrating his wife's 50th birthday in the Maldives. He got a call from one of their main clients demanding a meeting for the next day, Mr Davison-Sebry told WalesOnline.

Taylor & Sons had gone into administration two months after the error was made, the court also heard.

Mr Edis concluded after months of legal proceedings from November that the Registrar of Companies had a duty to take “reasonable care” to ensure that an order was not registered against the wrong firm.

Mr Davison-Sebry, 57, has claimed nearly £9 million in damages and a written ruling was published yesterday. The judge made no decisions on levels of compensation in the ruling however a damages assessment is expected at a later stage.