Decision

Decision on Asset Management One Limited

Published 27 April 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5195

For a change of company name of registration No. 15587927

Decision

The company name ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE LIMITED has been registered since 23 March 2024 under number 15587927.

By an application filed on 19 November 2024, ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE INTERNATIONAL 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 12 December 2024, 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 subsequently noted that the correspondence dated 12 December 2024 contained a clerical error and as such, the letters were re-issued on 19 February 2025. These letters were also re-issued due to clerical error. A copy of this application was therefore re-sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 19 June 2025, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Tracked 48” service. On 19 June 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Mat Elliot to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Mat Elliot in relation to this request.

On 27 August 2025, the Tribunal advised the parties that a court order to wind up company no. 15587927 had been issued and as the status of the company on the Companies House register was recorded as “liquidation”, the Tribunal intended to suspend the proceedings. The parties were asked to state whether they agreed to the suspension and, if they objected to the suspension, they were asked to provide reasons for their objection. On 24 September 2025 the applicant confirmed their agreement to the suspension of the proceedings. No reply was received from the primary respondent.

On 14 October 2025, Mat Elliot was joined as a co-respondent. Also on 14 October 2025, 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 2 December 2025, the parties were advised that further to official letter dated 27 August 2025, the applicant, in its email dated 24 September 2025 had agreed to suspension of these proceedings. No reply had been received from the primary respondent. Due to the status of the proceedings, the parties were advised that the proceedings were suspended for a period of three months pending the outcome of the liquidation. On 19 February 2026, the Tribunal notified the parties that the proceedings were further suspended until 2 March 2026 pending the outcome of the liquidation.

On 27 March 2026, following a review of the case, the parties were advised that given the amount of time that had elapsed since the proceedings were suspended and the fact that the status of the company had remained unchanged, it was the adjudicator’s preliminary view to proceed to issue a decision containing an order to change the name of the company. The parties were reminded that as no CNA 2 had been filed within the time period set, in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006. 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 two 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) ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE LIMITED and Mat Elliot 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.

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.

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.

ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED did not request its costs in its statement of case. As such, and in line with paragraph 10.4 of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction, I make no award of costs in its favour.

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 24 April 2026

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator