Decision

Decision on Inhus Engineering Limited

Updated 15 September 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3352

For a change of company name of registration No. 11624291

Decision

The company name INHUS ENGINEERING LIMITED has been registered since 15 October 2018 under number 11624291.

By an application filed on 28 October 2020, INHUS GROUP, UAB applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act). On 19 January 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise the adjudicator was minded to suspend the application because company no. 11624291 was the subject of a compulsory strike-off action. The parties did not object to this proposed course of action and the proceedings were suspended accordingly. However, on 15 November 2021, in response to a letter from the Tribunal further suspending proceedings, the applicant objected to the further suspension on the basis that it had first filed its application on 28 October 2020 (over 12 months previously), and this predated the notice of compulsory strike-off that was published on 15 December 2020. In addition, the applicant argued that as the strike off was compulsory rather than voluntary, the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced if the application were to be served. The adjudicator considered the applicant’s objection and on 11 January 2022 the parties were advised that in view of the length of time the application had been outstanding and the suspension of the compulsory strike-off action, which followed a previous discontinuance of a compulsory strike-off action, it was considered appropriate to serve the CNA1 application on the respondent.

A copy of the application was therefore sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 11 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 11 January 2022, the Tribunal wrote to Kevin William Raven to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to Kevin William Raven by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and by standard mail were returned. No comments were received from Kevin William Raven in relation to this request. On 11 March 2022, Kevin William Raven was joined as a co-respondent. On 11 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.

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) INHUS ENGINEERING 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) INHUS ENGINEERING LIMITED and Kevin William Raven 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.

INHUS GROUP, UAB, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order INHUS ENGINEERING LIMITED and Kevin William Raven, being jointly and severally liable, to pay INHUS GROUP, UAB 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 13 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. ↩