Many New Zeallanders don’t grasp the concept that there are two types of person , there are the living breathing people ( and I guess those who no longer breath ) who are called natural persons and then there are the “legal persons” which are companies , trusts , societies & organization which have had body corporate status assigned to them through statute.
Only legal and natural people can sue or be sued. In a nut shell Legal & natural people can be identified and held accountable .
There is a trend in NZ to use trading names , it is always a good idea to know and to have it in writing just who is using a particular trading name because you cannot sue the trading name or recover a debt from it or seek accountability for statements made as this has to be done through the legal person who uses that name.
The independent EY report into Len Brown is located at this link , (which reportedly cost $200,000 to produce ) is unsigned and does not disclose any real or natural persons who take responsibility for the accuracy of the document .WE presume that it comes from Ernst & Young Ltd Show Details as this is the only company registered under the Private security and personnel act. but then it does not disclose who the investigator /s were. – wish I had their job I certainly cant charge sums like that .
EY in this document is defined as ( emphasis mine )
“EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.”
It is important for an investigator to be identifiable and if Ernst and young Limited are the investigators why not say so.. or are they ashamed to put their name to the document?
So who was the legal person who compiled the report with no one identifiable and the page of disclaimers the document could easily be totally fictional as there is no way that any one can be held accountable for the accuracy of its content. The investigation could have been completed by one of the many other EY companies who have no licence to investigater.. its all open to speculation and assumption which must reflect on the accuracy of the content.
Based on the content however the council has acted and censured the mayor.. What is the reality what does the report not reveal ?
EY had just finished compiling a report commissioned by the mayor on PPPS Access the report here . If a 19 page document cost $200,000 we can only speculate what the 67 page document was worth , so EY had a vested interest in remaining loyal to the had which pays them.. Len Brown . In all fairness you cannot say that the EY report is ” independent ” as 1. we don’t know who conducted the inquiry and 2. EY companies had a vested interest in preserving a working relationship with the mayor.
Current EY companies in NZ are
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067) Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
so which one did the investigation ?
Can you rely on an entity which hides behind an undefined trading name ? It is great to advise and consult from a point of anonymity .. all care no responsibility .
smoke screens and mirrors watch this space for more on EY. clue TOP SECRET INVITATION LIST WIDENS BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT CHASM
Leave a Reply