Decision

Decision on Rothschild Consultancy Services Ltd

Updated 1 June 2021

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3236

For a change of company name of registration No. 12322198

Decision

The company name ROTHSCHILD CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD has been registered since 19 November 2019 under number 12322198.

By an application filed on 31 July 2020, N. M. ROTHSCHILD & SONS 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 9 September 2020, 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 “not called for”. On 9 September 2020, the Tribunal wrote to George Christodoulou to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letter sent to George Christodoulou by Royal Mail “Signed For” service was returned “not called for”. No comments were received from George Christodoulou in relation to this request. On 11 January 2021, George Christodoulou was joined as a co-respondent. On 11 January 2021, 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. The letter sent to the primary respondent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service was returned. The letter sent to the co-respondent was also returned. 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) ROTHSCHILD CONSULTANCY SERVICES 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) ROTHSCHILD CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD and George Christodoulou each shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not to 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.

N. M. ROTHSCHILD & SONS LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has requested an award of £500 for preparing a statement of case, which is at the top end of the published scale of costs. Having considered the nature of the statement of case and the fact that the applicant did not have to consider the other side’s statement (as no defence was filed) the applicant’s request of £500 for the statement of case is thought to be excessive and applying the scale, an award of £400 is considered more appropriate. I order ROTHSCHILD CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD and George Christodoulou, being jointly and severally liable, to pay, N. M. ROTHSCHILD & SONS 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 19th April 2021

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. ↩