A director's name in a commercial register is a public fact. A beneficial owner's name in a UBO register may or may not be. Whether either can be placed before a court depends on three distinct questions: what the source actually records, under what conditions it was extracted, and what evidentiary standard the receiving court applies.
Control — who actually directs the company and who holds the economic interest — is the question that drives most cross-border disputes. The answer is rarely a single document. It is a chain of documents, each with its own source, its own access condition, and its own limit.
What director records showThe appointed director, date of appointment, and in most jurisdictions the registered address. Source: national commercial register of the relevant jurisdiction · verified 2026-09-01. What UBO records showThe declared beneficial owner and the declared ownership percentage, where the register is accessible. Source: national UBO or PSC register of the relevant jurisdiction · verified 2026-09-01. Condition of accessVaries by jurisdiction. Several EU member states restrict public access to UBO registers following CJEU judgment C-37/20. Access conditions must be verified per jurisdiction before extraction. What neither record showsActual control exercised in practice, nominee arrangements, trust structures, or side agreements not filed with any register.What "can it be used in court" actually means
The question has three layers, and conflating them produces errors.
Layer 1 — admissibility. A document extracted from an official register is generally admissible as evidence of what the register states. It is not evidence of what is true in fact. Courts in common-law jurisdictions treat register entries as public records; courts in civil-law jurisdictions typically treat them as official documents with a presumption of accuracy that can be rebutted.
Layer 2 — probative weight. Admissibility and weight are different. A register entry proves that a person was recorded as director on a given date. It does not prove that the person exercised control, received instructions, or was aware of a specific transaction. Weight depends on what the entry is being used to establish.
Layer 3 — chain of custody. For a document to carry weight in proceedings, the extraction must be traceable: which register, which date, which version, extracted by whom, under what authority. An unofficial screenshot carries less weight than a certified extract. A certified extract from a foreign register may require apostille or legalisation depending on the forum.
Director records: what they establish and where they stop
A commercial register entry for a director establishes appointment. It does not establish authority. In most jurisdictions, a director may be registered but have their powers restricted by internal corporate documents — a shareholders' agreement, a supervisory board resolution, or a power of attorney — none of which appear in the public register.
For litigation purposes, the register entry is typically the starting point, not the conclusion. It identifies the person against whom a claim may be directed. It does not resolve whether that person had the authority to bind the company in the specific transaction at issue.
Registers also differ in what they record. Some jurisdictions record only the current director. Others retain historical entries with dates of appointment and removal. A dispute about authority at a specific past date requires a register that preserves historical data — and not all do.
Beneficial owner records: access, content, and the post-CJEU position
Following the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment in Case C-37/20 (November 2022), EU member states are no longer required to provide unrestricted public access to UBO registers. Several member states have restricted access to persons demonstrating a legitimate interest. The practical effect varies by jurisdiction.
Outside the EU, the position differs. The UK's PSC register at Companies House remains publicly accessible. Poland's CRBR register has its own access regime. Non-EU jurisdictions — including offshore centres commonly used in holding structures — frequently do not maintain public UBO registers at all.
For cross-border proceedings, this creates a structural problem. The beneficial owner declared in a register is the declared owner. The actual economic beneficiary may differ. Where the register is inaccessible, the declared owner cannot be established from the register at all without demonstrating legitimate interest to the relevant authority.
What a UBO register entry establishes, when accessible: the name, nationality, and declared ownership percentage of the person recorded as beneficial owner at the time of filing. It does not establish that the filing was accurate, that it was updated after a change in ownership, or that no nominee arrangement exists behind the declared owner.
Cross-border structures: where the chain breaks
Most disputes involving control questions arise precisely because the structure crosses jurisdictions. A holding company in one jurisdiction owns an operating company in another. The director of the operating company is a nominee. The beneficial owner is declared in the holding jurisdiction's register — if that register exists and is accessible.
The chain breaks at the point where:
- the holding jurisdiction does not maintain a UBO register;
- the register exists but access requires a national identifier or electronic signature not available to a foreign applicant;
- the register exists and is accessible but the filing has not been updated after a change in ownership;
- the structure includes a trust or foundation layer that sits outside corporate register logic entirely.
Establishing control in these cases requires combining register data with filed financial statements, corporate resolutions, and in some cases court-ordered disclosure. Each source has its own extraction condition and its own evidentiary status.
What is included at each tier
Price tiers are not applicable to this page. The scope and price of a report are communicated in response to a request, after the specific jurisdictions and objects are identified.
The limit of what the sources allow
Register data establishes what was filed. It does not establish what is true.
A director entry proves appointment, not authority. A UBO entry proves declaration, not actual ownership. Neither proves control in the operational sense that most disputes require.
The ceiling of what the sources allow is stated before payment. For any specific object and jurisdiction combination, the assessment covers: which register is relevant, whether it is accessible to a foreign applicant, what it records, what it does not record, and at what point the documentary chain ends.
Where a register is inaccessible without demonstrating legitimate interest, that condition is identified before extraction is attempted. Where a jurisdiction does not maintain a relevant register, that absence is itself a documented finding.
No report states conclusions that the sources do not support.
Where the sources disagree
A director register and a UBO register may record different persons as controlling the same company. A UBO register and filed financial statements may reflect different ownership percentages. These discrepancies are not errors to be resolved before delivery — they are findings. A report that identifies a discrepancy between sources has established something that a report drawing on a single source cannot.
Where sources disagree, the report records each source's entry separately, with the extraction date for each, and identifies the nature of the discrepancy without resolving it as a factual matter.
FAQ
Does a register entry constitute proof of control in litigation? A register entry constitutes proof of what the register states. Whether that is sufficient to establish control for the purposes of a specific claim depends on the forum's evidentiary rules and the legal standard being applied. That determination is outside the scope of a factual report.
Can a report extracted from a foreign register be used in domestic proceedings? Generally yes, subject to authentication requirements. Common-law jurisdictions typically require the document to be certified or apostilled. Civil-law jurisdictions may require legalisation or a sworn translation. The specific requirement depends on the forum and the originating jurisdiction.
What if the beneficial owner is not recorded in any accessible register? The absence of an accessible record is itself a documented finding. The report identifies which registers were checked, under what access conditions, and what each returned. A negative result from a register that covers the relevant jurisdiction is a traceable, dated finding — not a gap in the report.
What if the director on record is a nominee? A nominee director appears in the register as the appointed director. The register does not record the nominee relationship. Establishing that a director acts as nominee requires sources beyond the register: typically filed corporate resolutions, shareholder agreements, or powers of attorney. Whether those documents are accessible depends on the jurisdiction and the filing requirements applicable to the specific company type.
How is the extracted material formatted for use in proceedings? The report identifies each source, the date of extraction, the access method used, and the content of the relevant entry. Supporting documents are attached where extraction produces a retrievable file. The format is designed to support authentication by the receiving party's legal counsel.
Sources:
Companies House (UK PSC register) — https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk — verified 2026-09-01
Handelsregister (Germany) — https://www.handelsregister.de — verified 2026-09-01
CRBR (Poland central beneficial ownership register) — https://crbr.podatki.gov.pl — verified 2026-09-01
Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-37/20 — judgment of 22 November 2022 — public record
Note: registry access conditions, fees, and content vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. Each source is verified at the time of extraction for the specific report.
Request this report
Disclaimer: This report is a factual compilation from official registers and public sources. It is provided for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and contains no legal qualification of the facts established. VLO Law Firm assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vlolawfirm.com.
Author: Katharina Berg — Partner, Central Europe, VLO Law Firm
