Decision

Decision on Travelix Ltd

Published 16 September 2024

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4856

For a change of company name of registration No. 15544693

Decision

The company name TRAVELIX LTD has been registered since 6 March 2024 under number 15544693.

By an application filed on 7 May 2024, TRAVELLERS EXCHANGE CORPORATION 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 May 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 May 2024, the Tribunal wrote to Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel in relation to this request, however, on 26 June 2024 Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel contacted the Tribunal to advise that he intended to change the company name and he requested help to pay any fees arising. In response, in an email dated 1 July 2024, the Tribunal advised Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel that the process for voluntarily changing a company name is undertaken by Companies House and that the Tribunal is unable to assist with any fees. The email response sent to Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel by the Tribunal was returned as it was unable to be delivered. On 26 July 2024, Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel was joined as a co-respondent. On 26 July 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.

On 29 August 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to advise that further to official letter dated 26 July 2024, no request for a hearing was made. It was noted that the respondent had previously indicated that he intended to voluntarily change the company name and therefore the case had been reviewed and the company name TRAVELIX LTD remained unchanged. The parties were advised that as the respondent has not filed a defence within the specified time period and the company name remained unchanged, the proceedings would continue and an Order under Section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006 would be issued requiring a change of company name.

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) TRAVELIX 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) TRAVELIX LTD and Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel 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 but that the letter could not be delivered and was returned prior to the filing of the CNA1. In the circumstances, an award of costs to the applicant is considered appropriate.

TRAVELLERS EXCHANGE CORPORATION LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order TRAVELIX LTD and Ahmed Ehab Gomaa Fadel, being jointly and severally liable, to pay TRAVELLERS EXCHANGE CORPORATION 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 11 September 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. ↩