Decision

Decision on Newcross Health Care Ltd

Published 15 July 2024

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4739

For a change of company name of registration No. 14628106

Decision

The company name NEWCROSS HEALTH CARE LTD has been registered since 31 January 2023 under number 14628106.

By an application filed on 28 February 2024, NEWCROSS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS 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 20 March 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 20 March 2024, the Tribunal wrote to Judith Bvuma and Temidola Ojelabi to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Judith Bvuma and Temidola Ojelabi in relation to this request. On 22 April 2024, Judith Bvuma, the respondents director, contacted the tribunal by email to notify that she intended to cancel the company. On 1 May 2024, the tribunal wrote to the parties to advise that it was minded to suspend the application because company number 14628106 was the subject of a compulsory strike-off action. The parties were asked to state whether they agreed to the suspension of the application. In response, the applicant, in their email dated 9 May 2024, objected to the proposed suspension of the application. No response was received from the respondent. On 28 May 2024, the Companies House register recorded the compulsory strike-off action as being discontinued. Following consideration of the applicant’s objection and the subsequent recordal of suspension of the strike off application, the Adjudicator has determined that these proceedings would continue. As such, on 13 June 2024, Judith Bvuma and Temidola Ojelabi were joined as co-respondents. On 13 June 2024, 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) NEWCROSS HEALTH CARE 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) NEWCROSS HEALTH CARE LTD, Judith Bvuma and Temidola Ojelabi 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.

NEWCROSS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order NEWCROSS HEALTH CARE LTD, Judith Bvuma and Temidola Ojelabi, being jointly and severally liable, to pay NEWCROSS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED costs on the following basis:

Fee for application: £400
Statement of case: £200

Total: £600

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 9 July 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. ↩