Mauritius Consent of Partner of a Proposed Limited Liability Partnership (Form S23/F LLP2)

Candidate selection

GOV-4911 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). The prior cycle (GOV-4904) closed the last of the three primary CBRD Business Formation registration forms (LP2, LLP1, Foundation), leaving Mauritius at 4 of 6 verticals with no further primary-registration candidate open, but its own disclosed backlog named five LLP1/LP2 companion/notice forms still unauthored: consent-of-partner, consent-of-manager, change-of-name, change-of-registered-office, and removal-from-register.

This cycle re-fetched CBRD's own downloadable-forms listing (https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/downloadable-forms/, HTTP 200) fresh rather than trusting the prior cycle's disclosure alone, and located all five real form links under the "Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2016" heading plus four Limited Partnerships Act 2011 siblings under the LP heading. Two links were byte-verified:

• CONSENT-OF-PARTNER_LLP2.pdf — HTTP 200, 48,793 bytes, a genuine, small (1 page) consent form.
• CONSENT-OF-MANAGER-_LLP2.pdf — HTTP 404 on direct fetch (both plain curl and with a browser User-Agent header), despite being linked live from the listing page's own HTML three separate times. The Department's own CDN/webserver appears to reject this specific filename (the trailing hyphen before the underscore in CONSENT-OF-MANAGER-_LLP2.pdf is one plausible cause, but not confirmed) — a genuine, disclosed dead link, not a scoping choice. Left as open, unscreened backlog for a future cycle in case the Department's own hosting is fixed or a mirror surfaces.

Between the two remaining reachable candidates from the LLP1 family tried this cycle, "Consent of Partner" was picked: it is the first-named item in this schema's own disclosed backlog list and, once fetched, was confirmed to be a clean single-page form suitable for a single, well-scoped PR (per this registry's own "one deliverable per PR" convention) rather than batching multiple companion forms together.

Reaching the live source

https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CONSENT-OF-PARTNER_LLP2.pdf

• Plain unauthenticated curl, no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge — same unauthenticated hosting pattern as every other CBRD form this registry has already modelled.
• HTTP 200, 48,793 bytes retrieved.
• sha256 of the retrieved bytes: fcae66cd8ae626626a6fc7936f0aef684d64b61ae96839dab6a7d8e46945b349.
• 1 page, confirmed via pdfjs-dist's numPages.
• getAnnotations() returned 0 form-field annotations — not an interactive AcroForm, same as every sibling CBRD schema.
• getTextContent() returned 114 positioned text items — a genuine text layer, with every printed label and blank-line dot-leader run recovered cleanly, including exact (x, y) positions per item. No canvas render was needed: unlike the LP2/LLP1/Foundation siblings, this form has no checkbox or ruled-grid layout ambiguous enough to require visual confirmation — every field is a simple labelled blank line.

Authority attribution

The form's own header ("S23-F LLP2 THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2016") and its hosting directly on the Corporate and Business Registration Department's own domain (companies.govmu.org/cbrd/, the same authority already attributed on the LP2/LLP1/Foundation siblings) attribute authority to the Corporate and Business Registration Department (abbreviation CBRD) directly.

Extraction method

A single positional text-layer dump (sorted by descending y-coordinate, then x) was sufficient to reconstruct the form's row structure. Items were grouped into visual rows using a 2-point y-tolerance.

Document structure

Page 1 (single page):

• Header/title: "FOR OFFICE USE" box (top right) and "CONSENT OF PARTNER (Section 23)" title, both officer-only or non-fillable — not modelled.
• Two disclosed-but-unmodelled boilerplate notes: "If there is more than one Partner, please attach a separate sheet or sheets with the consent of the additional Partners set out in the approved format" (an instruction, not a field), immediately preceded on the same page by a near-identical sentence referring to "director" instead of "Partner" — a genuine finding: Limited Liability Partnerships have partners and managers, never directors, under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2016; this second sentence is evidently boilerplate carried over unedited from a companies-registration consent-of-director template. Disclosed here rather than silently corrected or omitted; it does not correspond to any fillable field either way.
• Partner/partnership identification block: "Name of proposed Limited Liability Partnership" (blank); "Full name of Partner" (blank) paired on the same row with "BRN." (blank, right side, for a body-corporate partner); "ID No." (blank, right side, for a natural-person partner); "Full address" (blank). See partnerBrn's own field description in schema.json for the mutually-exclusive-alternate rationale — the form prints no discriminator checkbox distinguishing a natural-person from a body-corporate partner.
• Consent declaration: "I consent to act as Partner of the above proposed Limited Liability Partnership." (a static assertion, not a field to fill in) followed by "Date: ______" and "Signature: ______" on the same row.
• "Presented by:" block: "Name: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Address: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Reference: ______" (one line, optional — a filer's own internal reference, distinct from the Department's own office-use box).
• "(For office use)" box: "Officer's Name:", "Sig:", "Date:" — officer- only, not modelled.
• Footer: "Sheet ___ of ___ (for office use)" — officer-only, not modelled.

Conformance

No requiredWhen gates are used (the BRN/ID No. pair has no printed discriminator field to gate on, per this registry's own standing either/or-pair convention already used on the LP2/LLP1 siblings' duration fields). An ephemeral, uncommitted Node script exercised:

• 2 valid scenarios: (a) a natural-person partner supplying partnerIdNo and omitting partnerBrn, (b) a body-corporate partner supplying partnerBrn and omitting partnerIdNo.
• 8 required-field-omission mutations (one per required field: nameOfProposedLimitedLiabilityPartnership, partnerFullName, partnerFullAddress, declarationDate, signatureOfPartner, presentedByName, presentedByAddress) each independently rejected as expected.
• 1 unknown-field-rejection mutation, rejected as expected.

Both node tools/validate.mjs and node tools/validate-ajv.mjs pass against the full registry with this schema included.

Scope and disclosed backlog

This schema does not model any of the other companion/notice forms on the same downloadable-forms listing, each re-verified this cycle:

• Consent of Manager (LLP2 sibling form) and Application for Removal of Limited Partnership from Register (LP4) — both linked live from the listing page's own HTML, but both 404 on direct fetch (CONSENT-OF-MANAGER-_LLP2.pdf and ...-TRANFERRING-...-LP4.pdf respectively) — genuine dead links on the Department's own hosting, not a scoping choice. Left open, unscreened backlog.
• Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP5, 47,107 bytes, HTTP 200), Notice of Change in Registered Office (LLP4, 47,286 bytes, HTTP 200), and Application for removal of Limited Liability Partnership from Register (LLP8, 54,643 bytes, HTTP 200) — confirmed live and byte-verifiable this cycle. Left open, disclosed backlog for future companion-schema cycles.
• Their Limited Partnerships Act 2011 analogues, also confirmed live this cycle: Consent of General Partner (48,599 bytes, HTTP 200), Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Partnership (LP5, 46,918 bytes, HTTP 200), Notice of Change in Registered Particulars (LP7, 47,636 bytes, HTTP 200). Left open, disclosed backlog for future companion-schema cycles.

Full company incorporation itself remains out of scope (login-gated CBRIS portal, no static equivalent, per every prior CBRD schema's own disclosed scope).