Decision

Decision on Human Rights Watch Ltd

Updated 21 December 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3963

For a change of company name of registration No. 12915287

Decision

The company name HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH LTD has been registered since 30 September 2020 under number 12915287.

By an application filed on 22 July 2022, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, INC. 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 5 August 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 5 August 2022, the Tribunal wrote to Sami Evans to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Sami Evans in relation to this request. On 23 September 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to advise the adjudicator was minded to suspend the application because company 12915287 was the subject of a compulsory strike-off action. The parties were granted a period of 14 days to state whether they agreed to the suspension of the application. On 7 October 2022, the applicant notified that it objected to the suspension of the proceedings due to the respondent’s failure to file a defence within the time period allowed, the delay that would result from a suspension and the applicant’s name would remain on the register in the event the respondent company were to be dissolved. The applicant stated that a decision in the proceedings would be helpful in future cases where its name was being used without its permission. No response was received from the primary respondent. The adjudicator considered the applicant’s objections and on 12 October 2022 the parties were advised that the adjudicator had reviewed the file and the adjudicator’s preliminary view was that, in view of the stage of proceedings and as no defence was filed within the period allowed, it was not appropriate to suspend the proceedings pending the application to strike off.

On 12 October 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. On 13 October 2022 Sami Evans was joined as a co-respondent. 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) HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 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) HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH LTD and Sami Evans 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.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, INC., having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH LTD and Sami Evans, being jointly and severally liable, to pay HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, INC. 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 1 November 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. ↩