Identify the entity being pursued before answering allegations intended for someone else.
Corporate Recovery Partners
01 / 06
A familiar trading name appears on the claim
A business owner receives a demand naming a company they closed years ago. Their current company uses a similar brand and operates from the same premises. The work described was ordered by another entity entirely. Responding casually as ‘we’ could make an already confused record harder to untangle.
Record the claimant’s name, the named respondent and any company or business identifiers. Compare them with the contract, purchase order and invoice.
Distinguish a trading name from the legal entity operating it. Similar branding, shared staff or an old address should prompt investigation rather than an immediate conclusion about liability.
Collect the documents showing who ordered, supplied and paid for the relevant work. Include any transfer or change-of-entity communications that may explain the confusion.
Do not amend old records to match the demand. The original record may be central to explaining why the wrong business appears to have been identified.
If court papers have arrived, obtain legal advice promptly even if the naming error seems obvious. Business.gov.au warns that disputes involve time limits and potential legal costs.
Ask whether the document requires a formal response or correction. An informal email saying ‘wrong company’ may not address the applicable procedure.
Prepare a concise factual explanation supported by the relevant documents. Have an adviser assess any wording that could be interpreted as accepting responsibility for another entity.
Keep communication directed to resolving identity first. If the claimant changes the party or basis of its claim, review the revised case rather than assuming the matter has ended. Check whether the document names the entity incorrectly or instead alleges a separate basis for your involvement; those require different responses.
