Decision

Decision on Dido Property Limited

Published 13 July 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3753

For a change of company name of registration No. 13495322

Decision

The company name DIDO PROPERTY LIMITED has been registered since 6 July 2021 under number 13495322.

By an application filed on 24 January 2022, DIDO PROPERTY LIMITED 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 28 January 2022, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and also by standard mail. On 28 January 2022, the Tribunal wrote to Niall Irving Blair to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Niall Irving Blair in relation to this request. On 8 February 2022, the respondent contacted the Tribunal and stated that he had not received adequate notice prior to the CNA1 being filed by the applicant. On 25 February 2022, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the respondent’s coimmunication and stated that its comments had been noted and would be taken into consideration by the adjudicator when a decision on costs is made. On 25 March 2022, Niall Irving Blair was joined as a co-respondent. On 25 March 2022, the parties were advised that no defence had been received to the application and so the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed. 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.

On 8 April 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to advise that it was minded to suspend the application pending an application which had been made to strike off company number 13495322. The parties were asked to state whether they agreed to the suspension of the application. In response, on 19 April 2022, the respondent confirmed its agreement to the proposed suspension of the application. On 29 April 2022, the applicant notified that they objected to the application being suspended due to the respondent’s name being identical and the risk of the strike off application appearing to be made by the applicant on its own behalf and also that a ruling on the matter would allow the applicant to trade without public confusion.

Following consideration of the applicant’s objection, on 11 May 2022 the Adjudicator issued a preliminary view that these proceedings continue. 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) DIDO PROPERTY LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;^{[footnote 1]}

(b) DIDO PROPERTY LIMITED and Niall Irving Blair each 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.

All respondents, including individual co-respondents, have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006 not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

DIDO PROPERTY LIMITED, having been successful, would normally be entitled to a contribution towards its costs. However, on 8 June 2022 the adjudicator issued a preliminary view that the applicant had not provided adequate notice to the respondent prior to making the application. This is because the applicant had confirmed at part 7 of form CNA1 that they had contacted the respondent by letter dated 21 January 2022 and the CNA1 application was filed on 24 January 2022. The Tribunal considered this time period to be inadequate. The parties were granted a period of two weeks to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made. In accordance with 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice Direction 2014, an award of costs will therefore not be made in this case.

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 7 July 2022

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. ↩