It is the document or supported chain showing why an identified person may perform a specified act for a company at the relevant date and within stated limits.

No. Officeholding may be part of the evidence, but transaction authority depends on the applicable law, constitution, decisions, delegations and document involved.

Not automatically. The decision-making power, delegation and applicable execution method must be checked for the transaction.

There is no safe universal answer. Contractual authority, the constitution, board composition, approvals and statutory execution rules may lead to different outcomes.

No. The office does not itself confer every transaction power. The relevant mandate, delegation or statutory execution role must be identified.

Not by themselves. Ownership, membership and control status remain distinct from power to bind or represent the company.

It is a person authorised under an identified source to sign specified documents or perform specified acts. It is not a universal statutory office.

No. It may help identify a signature but does not create or define the power to use it for a transaction.

A board resolution records a directors’ decision. A power of attorney is an authority instrument empowering an attorney. A resolution may approve the grant but is not automatically the power itself.

It is an instrument by which a company empowers an attorney to perform acts within its stated scope. Creation, execution and use depend on the applicable jurisdiction and company authority.

Under the law of England and Wales, the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 and Companies Act execution provisions are material. The governing jurisdiction must be confirmed; this is not stated as a universal UK or foreign-law rule.

Not automatically. The company’s governing powers, decision-making requirements and the execution of the instrument must be checked.

Only where the instrument and applicable law permit substitution or further delegation. No general right is assumed.

Review its terms, date, duration, conditions, company status and evidence of revocation, replacement or exhaustion. Recipient-specific non-revocation evidence may be required.

No. Certification of a copy ordinarily addresses the copy, not continuing effect, unless the authorised certifier properly makes a separately supported statement.

Yes. Scope may be transaction-specific and subject to value, territory, counterparty, time, conditions or other limits.

Both may act for another, but the legal source, form and permitted acts can differ. The document and applicable law must be identified rather than treating the terms as interchangeable.

They may allocate directors’ powers, decision procedures and delegation powers. Use Articles, Objects and Constitutional Documents for Evidential Use to identify the operative version; disputed interpretation requires legal advice.

That depends on legislation, the operative constitution, transaction and any reserved matter. Existing decision evidence is handled through Board Minutes, Members’ Resolutions and Corporate Decision Documents for Evidential Use.

Not by itself. Filing may evidence delivery of a document but does not resolve every question about approval, delegation, conditions or execution.

Companies House records officers and filed information and supplies official products. It does not determine every private transaction-authority question.

It can state supported facts within its scope, but naming an officeholder does not automatically establish authority for every transaction. Use Certificates of Incumbency and Officeholder Evidence for the incumbency question.

They can involve different legal rules and formalities. The document, jurisdiction, capacity, authority and execution method must be checked.

No universal rule applies to every document. The transaction, applicable law, constitution and selected execution route determine what is required.

The Companies Act provides a route for execution by an attorney under an instrument executed as a deed, but the actual grant, scope, jurisdiction and transaction must be checked.

Possibly, depending on the instrument, applicable law, execution and witnessing requirements, registry procedure and recipient acceptance. It is not assumed.

Not automatically. A scan does not by itself establish identity, authority, intention, witnessing, valid execution or recipient acceptance.

Not necessarily. The shortest supported set should follow the recipient’s confirmed requirement, transaction and risk without concealing a material qualification.

That depends on the document, source, statement and recipient. The certifier must have the necessary evidence, access, professional capacity and authority; there is no universal rule.

No. It remains private evidence even where it refers to facts appearing on the Companies House register.

It may be required where the recipient asks for one or where validity, capacity, interpretation, authority, execution, enforceability or foreign recognition requires a qualified legal conclusion.

No. This service assembles evidence of existing supportable authority. A new decision, delegation, power, correction or legal remedy requires a separate route.

No. Ratification and its legal effect are separate governance and legal questions.

No. Certification cannot repair the underlying authority or execution defect.

The transaction route pauses while the sources, dates, hierarchy, later decisions and possible correction or legal owner are identified.

There is no universal answer. It depends on the source and terms of authority, the capacity in which it was granted, applicable law and later events.

Dissolution may affect authority and document availability. Authentication does not restore the company, and restoration does not automatically validate every historic authority or transaction. Use Documents of Dissolved, Restored and Former Companies where status affects the evidence available.

No. The authority document, signature, destination and recipient instructions determine whether either stage is justified.

Only where the recipient or competent authority requires it. Language, translator qualification and stage order should be confirmed first.

No. It is a separate diplomatic act used only where the destination procedure requires it.

The receiving authority or recipient. Companies House and each professional or institution control only their own product, act or decision.

The company, jurisdiction, recipient, transaction, proposed actor, capacity, relevant date, governing sources, available authority documents, limits, execution status, discrepancies and required presentation. “Not known” is acceptable.

Jurisdiction, transaction complexity, number and condition of authority documents, historic checks, limits, conflicts, required evidential form, professional stages, preliminary work and delivery.