Decision

Decision on AXA Technology UK Ltd

Published 16 September 2024

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4810

For a change of company name of registration No. 15599441

Decision

The company name AXA TECHNOLOGY UK LTD has been registered since 28 March 2024 under number 15599441.

By an application filed on 19 April 2024, AXA applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 30 April 2024, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and also by standard mail.

On 7 June 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to confirm that AXA TECHNOLOGY UK LTD had changed its name to AXAS TECHNOLOGY UK LTD and that it was the Adjudicator’s preliminary view that the new name did not appear to be an offending name and as such, the tribunal was minded to close the case.. The parties were granted a period of two weeks to state whether they agreed to the closing of the case. The parties were advised that should the application be closed, it was the preliminary view of the Adjudicator that costs be awarded to the applicant, given that notice was given to the respondent prior to action. The parties were granted a period of two weeks to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. In the absence of a request to be heard, the parties were notified that an order for costs would be issued in due course. No request for a hearing was made.

In response, in their email dated 20 June 2024, the respondent confirmed they agreed to the closure of the case but stated that they had not received prior notice of the application and requested that no award of costs be made. No request for a hearing was made.

On 24 June 2024, the applicant contacted the Tribunal to advise that they noted the change of the respondent’s company name from AXA TECHNOLOGY UK LTD to AXAS TECHNOLOGY UK LTD but wished to continue with the proceedings. The adjudicator considered the applicants continuing objection and their request to continue with their action and decided the proceedings should continue. On 4 July 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties referring to official letter dated 7 June 2024 and the applicant’s letter dated 24 June 2024 and advised the parties that no defence had been received to the application and so the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and make an order under section 73(1). The parties were granted a period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3). Rule 3(4) states:

The primary respondent, before the end of that period, shall file a counter-statement on the appropriate form, otherwise the adjudicator may treat it as not opposing the application and may make an order under section 73(1).

Under the provisions of this rule, the adjudicator may exercise discretion so as to treat the respondent as opposing the application. In this case I can see no reason to exercise such discretion and, therefore, decline to do so.

As the primary respondent has not responded to the allegations made, it is treated as not opposing the application. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act I make the following order:

(a) AXAS TECHNOLOGY UK LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name; ^{[footnote 1]}

(b) AXAS TECHNOLOGY UK LTD shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

In accordance with s.73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, I will determine a new company name as per section 73(4) of the Act and will give notice of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

AXA, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. The Tribunal notes that in its CNA1 form the applicant states that it sent a letter to the respondent providing notice by registered post on 4 April 2024, but received no response prior to making its application, as per 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice direction. The respondent, in their email dated 20 June 2024 confirmed that they agreed to the closure of the case but stated that they had not received prior notice of the application and requested that no award of costs be made. On 15 August 2024, the Tribunal issued a preliminary view to award £800 costs to the applicant, given that notice was provided to the respondent prior to the application being made. The parties were granted a period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made.

I order AXAS TECHNOLOGY UK LTD to pay AXA costs on the following basis:

Fee for application: £400
Statement of case: £400

Total: £800

This sum is to be paid within seven days of the expiry of the appeal period or within seven days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful.

Any notice of appeal against this decision to order a change of name must be given within one month of the date of this order. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.

The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 11 September 2024

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator

1. An “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69. ↩