Decision

Decision on Recipharm AG Limited

Updated 24 August 2023

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4196

For a change of company name of registration No. SC746515

Decision

The company name RECIPHARM AG LIMITED has been registered since 6 October 2022 under number SC746516.

By an application filed on 15 February 2023, RECIPHARM 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 21 February 2023, 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. It was returned “addressee gone away”. On 21 February 2023, the Tribunal wrote to Siddharth Singh Chauhan to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to the Siddharth Singh Chauhan by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and standard mail were returned “addressee gone away”. No comments were received from Siddharth Singh Chauhan in relation to this request. On 1 June 2023, Siddharth Singh Chauhan was joined as a co-respondent. On 1 June 2023, 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) RECIPHARM AG 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) RECIPHARM AG LIMITED and Siddharth Singh Chauhan 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.

The applicant is requesting its costs. In its form CNA1, the applicant states that it sent a letter to the respondent providing notice prior to the filing of the CNA1 but the letter could not be delivered. The applicant advises that the registered office is a block of flats with no flat number listed, the delivery company were therefore unable to deliver the letter to either the company or the individual (the same address).

In the circumstances, an award of costs to the applicant is considered appropriate.

RECIPHARM LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order RECIPHARM AG LIMITED and Siddharth Singh Chauhan, being jointly and severally liable, to pay RECIPHARM LIMITED 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 4 July 2023

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. ↩