Decision

Decision on Berkeley Concierge Limited

Published 23 July 2025

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-names-tribunal-decision-berkeley-concierge-limited/decision-on-berkeley-concierge-limited

Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4329 by The Berkeley Hotel Limited for a change to the company name of Berkeley Concierge Limited, a company incorporated under number 14192122

Background and pleadings

1.  The company name Berkeley Concierge Limited (“the primary respondent”) has been registered since 23 June 2022.

2.  By an application filed on 9 May 2023, The Berkeley Hotel Limited (“the applicant”) applied under section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) for the primary respondent’s name to be changed.

3.  The applicant claims it is associated with the name “The Berkeley”, being the name of its five-star luxury hotel located in Knightsbridge, London. This name has been used in relation to this hotel continuously since 1897. The hotel provides its guests with concierge services and the applicant claims these are of the highest quality. As a result, it is claimed that the applicant enjoys a substantial reputation in the name “The Berkeley”. It claims that the disputed company name consists entirely of the distinctive element of the applicant’s trade mark BERKELEY plus the descriptive words CONCIERGE and LIMITED. Is asserts that, because of the goodwill attached to the name BERKELEY, the disputed company name is contrary to section 69(1)(a) of the Act.

  1. The applicant also makes a further/alternative claim that the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to its trade mark BERKELEY such that use in the UK would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between it and the applicant. The applicant asserts that the likelihood is increased because of its own reputation in respect to concierge services. It claims that the primary respondent’s name is also contrary to section 69(1)(b) of the Act.

  2. The applicant states that it is the registered proprietor of two trade mark registrations, namely UK906851364 THE BERKELEY and UK910465912 BERKELEY that both contain a wide range of services including “hotel services”.

  3. The applicant states that it contacted the primary respondent on 26 September 2022 and provides a copy of this letter at Annex A to its application form. It warns both the primary respondent and Mohamad Elkhadra, its sole shareholder, that if the primary respondent did not change its name the applicant would commence proceedings against it in this tribunal.

  4. The primary respondent filed a notice of defence and counterstatement. It denies all of the applicant’s claims. It points to Berkeley Square being a garden square and one of the best-known squares in London. The Form CNA2 is signed by Mr Elkhadra who explains that he lives in London and that he and most of his friends meet in or around the square to have dinner or go for drinks. He claims that, therefore, the choice of the primary respondent’s name had nothing to do with the applicant’s name. He also claims that he found that the primary respondent’s name was available on the company register and that there are many companies around Berkeley Square that trade under names that include the word Berkeley. He lists a number of names to support this argument.

  5. The primary respondent relies upon the following three defences:

  • its name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and that the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business;
  • its name was adopted in good faith;
  • the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.
  1. At the request of the applicant, Mr Elkhadra was subsequently joined to the proceedings as co-respondent.

10.  The applicant was represented throughout these proceedings by Murgitroyd & Company. The primary respondent and Mr Elkhadra were unrepresented.

  1. The parties both filed evidence and the applicant filed written submissions. These will be taken into account and will be referred to, to the extent that I consider it necessary. No hearing was requested and I make my decision after careful consideration of all the papers on file.

Evidence

12.  The applicant’s evidence takes the form of a witness statement by Knut Wylde, General Manager of the applicant, a position he has held since February 2016. Mr Wylde provides evidence regarding the history and business of the applicant’s hotel known as The Berkeley. His witness statement is accompanied by Exhibits KW1 – KW8.

  1. The respondents’ evidence is in the form of the short witness statement of Mohamad Elkhadra, director of the primary respondent, dated 31 March 2024. He provides narrative evidence regarding how the public is likely to perceive the name “Berkeley” and how the respondent’s name was chosen.  

Decision                                                   

14.  At the time the application was received, Section 69 of the Act stated:

“(1) A person (“the applicant”) may object to a company’s registered name on the ground—

(a) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or

(b) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

(2) The objection must be made by application to a company names adjudicator (see section 70).

(3) The company concerned shall be the primary respondent to the application.

Any of its members or directors may be joined as respondents.

(4) If the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is established, it is for the respondents to show—

(a) that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill; or

(b) that the company—

(i) is operating under the name, or

(ii) is proposing to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation, or

(iii) was formerly operating under the name and is now dormant; or

(c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business; or

(d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

(e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

If none of those is shown, the objection shall be upheld.

(5) If the facts mentioned in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) are established, the objection shall nevertheless be upheld if the applicant shows that the main purpose of the respondents (or any of them) in registering the name was to obtain money (or other consideration) from the applicant or prevent him from registering the name.

(6) If the objection is not upheld under subsection (4) or (5), it shall be dismissed.

(7) In this section “goodwill” includes reputation of any description.”

  1. As a result of Statutory Instrument 2024 No. 234,[footnote 1] section 69 has been amended as follows:
  • Section 69(1)(b) has been amended so that consideration of similarity between the applicant’s name (in which he has goodwill) and the registered company name is extended to use outside of the United Kingdom, where such use would likely mislead members of the public outside the United Kingdom
  • Section 69(3) has been amended so that persons who were members or directors of the registered company at the time at which the name was registered may be joined as respondents
  • Section 69(4)(b) has been repealed in its entirety. This means that a defendant will no longer be able to defend the challenge against its registered company name on the basis that (i) it is operating under the name, (ii) it is proposing to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation, or (iii) it was formerly operating under the name and is now dormant (the defences provided under section 69(4)(a), (c), (d) and (e) remain unchanged)
  1. These amendments do not appear to impact upon the circumstances of the case before me.

Goodwill/reputation

  1. Under section 69(1) the applicant must establish that it had a goodwill or reputation under the names upon which it relies at the date of the application,[footnote 2]  in this case, 9 May 2023. 

18.  The concept of goodwill was explained in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 at 223:

“What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define.  It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.”

  1. Sections 69(1) and (7) stipulate that the applicant must have goodwill and that this includes reputation of any description. This must be proven in evidence. The applicant’s evidence relevant to demonstrating its goodwill/reputation can be summarised as:
  • The applicant is the owner of the “world-renowned” luxury hotel, The Berkeley, originally located between Knightsbridge and Belgravia in London[footnote 3] before moving to its current location in the centre of Knightsbridge in 1972.[footnote 4]
  • Extracts are provided from the hotel’s website that prominently displays its name “The Berkeley”. It provides information regarding the history of the hotel, the awards it has won and its facilities;[footnote 5]
  • Prominent and celebrity chefs have had restaurants at The Berkeley over the years, including Marcus Wareing (in 2008), Gordon Ramsey, Pierre Koffman and Jean-Georges Vongerichten. It is claimed that the hotel also has an on-site patisserie backed by the world-famous chef, Cédric Grolet (best known for his hyper-realistic desserts and cakes that resemble fruit and flowers);[footnote 6]
  • The Berkeley has received many awards for its outstanding services and these include top restaurant in London in the 2010 Sunday Times Top 100 Restaurants, the 2013 Tatler Spa Award for best swimming pool in the UK, the 2014 Business Travelling Award where The Berkeley gym was named number two in the top ten hotel gyms in the world, the hotel’s junior suite winning the best hotel suite in Europe at the International Hotel and Property Awards 2018 and The Berkeley Bar & Terrace winning the overall UK bar of the Year at the 2020 Restaurant & Bar Design Awards;[footnote 7]
  • The Berkeley is a five-star luxury hotel and has been acknowledged and reviewed by numerous respected travel publications. Copies of these universally positive reviews are provided[footnote 8] and include:
    • An undated “Luxury Hotel Review” of The Berkeley on the website Luxury Explorer (printed 9 May 2023);
    • An undated “Expert Review” of the hotel on the website Fodor’s Travel (also printed 9 May 2023);
    • A review of the hotel on the website The Good The Bad and The Luxurious conducted after a stay at the hotel in April 2022;
    • An undated review of the hotel on the website Condé Nast Traveler (also printed 9 May 2023);
  • The Berkeley receives consistently excellent feedback as evidenced by questionnaires completed by guests about their stay.[footnote 9] Examples of these are provided;[footnote 10]
  • The applicant’s revenue is derived solely from The Berkeley and between the years 2012 – 2022 its annual turnover was between £45 million and just under £60 million (with the exception of 2020/2021 when turnover was significantly lower as a result of the COVID pandemic);[footnote 11]
  • With the exception of the years 2020/2021, The Berkeley operates at above 70% capacity of its 187 rooms;[footnote 12]
  • Marketing figures are provided for the years 2012 – 2022 and range between £1.2 million to £2.1 million a year;[footnote 13]
  • The Berkeley promotes itself in leading luxury publications such as Conde Nast Traveler, House and Garden, Luxury Lifestyle Magazine and Vanity Fair.[footnote 14] Examples of these are also provided.[footnote 15] One is dated 23 August 2021. Another was printed on 9 May 2023 (on the relevant date but providing historical information about The Berkeley Hotel) and two others reference events in 2022. All prominently reference “The Berkeley”;
  • Guests, staying at The Berkeley, rely upon the applicant to provide them with “the best concierge services in London” which is available 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year;[footnote 16]
  • The Berkeley’s concierge team has a total of 21 members. The team is award winning with one of the team being awarded the Young Concierge Award 2022.[footnote 17] Information about the hotel’s concierge service from the hotel’s website is provided, as are positive reviews of the service on Tripadvisor and a screenshot obtained from “Concierge Awards 2022” announcing a member of The Berkeley’s concierge team receiving the “Young Concierge of the Year Award”.[footnote 18]

  1. Despite some of this evidence being dated after the relevant date (i.e. the date of application, 9 May 2023) it does illustrate that the name The Berkeley is a long-standing name of the luxury hotel owned by the applicant and located in Knightsbridge in London. The scale of the turnover figures provided going back to the year 2012 illustrates a very successful business. This business is identified by the name “The Berkeley” and is consistently used throughout the exhibits, including by third parties when referring to, or reviewing, the hotel. The evidence also illustrates that The Berkeley is positioned as a luxury hotel with a concierge service that contributes to its high levels of service provided to its guests.  

  2. In summary, taking all this evidence into account, I conclude that the applicant has the requisite goodwill and reputation as required by section 69(1)(a) and section 69 (7).

Are the names the same or “sufficiently similar”?

  1. The primary respondent’s name must also be “sufficiently similar” to the name in which the applicant enjoys goodwill/reputation in the UK such that it would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between them. Whilst I recognise that the applicant has trade mark registrations, one of which is for BERKELEY, the evidence exclusively refers to its hotel as THE BERKELEY and I consider that it is this name that the applicant is entitled to rely upon. The differences between this name and the primary respondent’s name “Berkeley Concierge Limited” is the presence of the words “Concierge” and “Limited” in the primary respondent’s name and the absence of the definite article THE.

  2. The word “Limited” is an indication of corporate legal status and I consider this should be ignored for the purposes of the comparison (see, for example, MB Inspection Ltd v Hi-Rope Ltd [2010] RPC 18 at paragraph 48). The presence of the word “Concierge” in the primary respondent’s name is a further difference. This is a descriptive word meaning:

“Now, in France and other foreign countries, The person who has charge of the entrance of a building; a janitor, porter.”[footnote 19]

  1. As the applicant submits, I consider that this word is descriptive and merely indicates the area of business and can also be ignored for the purposes of this assessment.

25.. In its written submissions, the applicant relies on goodwill and reputation in the names THE BERKELEY and BERKELEY, however, its evidence consists exclusively of references to THE BERKELEY, and I consider that the applicant has only demonstrated goodwill and reputation as identified by the name THE BERKELEY and not BERKELEY per se. Consequently, my consideration of whether the contested company name is sufficiently similar is limited to a comparison with the name THE BERKELEY only.  The definite article THE, present in the applicant’s sign, is absent from the primary respondent’s name and is a point of difference. However, keeping in mind that the word BERKELEY dominates the name being nearly three times as long as the word THE. Further, the word THE is ubiquitous in the English language whilst the word BERKELEY may strike some as being a geographical name, has a greater level of distinctive character. Consequently, upon encountering the primary respondent’s name, it is likely to immediately create a link to the applicant’s hotel. Therefore, I find that when the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to the name THE BERKELEY for the purposes of section 69(1)(b) of the Act. As submitted by the applicant, I find that use of the primary respondent’s name in the UK would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between it and the applicant’s business.

Defences

  1. The applicant has successfully demonstrated that it has the requisite goodwill/reputation and I have found that the respective names are sufficiently similar. Therefore, the onus switches to the respondents to establish their defence. There are three defences relied upon and I consider these below.

Was the name registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business

  1. This defence appears to be based upon a misunderstanding by Mr Elkhadra. When completing the primary respondent’s Form CNA2 he states that “[t]he name I am using [my emphasis] relates to London and the square”. Further, in Mr Elkhadra’s witness statement, he explains that he has “invested huge amounts of money in marketing and trying to build a customer base under [the primary respondent’s] name” and that the primary respondent “made a turnover of “4 million pounds between 2022 and 2023…” These comments do not suggest that the name was registered as part of the activities of a company formation business but rather that the name was chosen for an active business that Mr Elkhadra is associated with.

  2. Nowhere else in the primary respondent’s defence or evidence is there any suggestion that it was formed in the course of a company formation business. Consequently, I find that this defence has not been made out and fails.

Was the name adopted in good faith

  1. It is evident from the wording of s.69(4)(d) of the Act that the onus is on the respondents to show that the contested name was adopted in good faith.

  2. In (1) Adnan Shaaban Abou-Rahmah (2) Khalid Al-Fulaij & Sons General Trading & Contracting Co v (1) Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha (2) Qumar Bello (3) Aboubakar Mohammed Maiga (4) City Express Bank of Lagos (5) Profile Chemical Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 1492, Rix LJ commented upon the concept of good faith:

‘48 The content of this requirement of good faith, or what Lord Goff in Lipkin Gorman had expressed by reference to it being “inequitable” for the defendant to be made to repay, was considered further in Niru Battery. There the defendant bank relied on change of position where its manager had authorised payment out in questionable circumstances, where he had good reason to believe that the inwards payment had been made under a mistake. The trial judge had (a) acquitted the manager of dishonesty in the Twinsectra or Barlow Clowes sense on a claim of knowing assistance in breach of trust, but (b) concluded that the defence of change of position had failed. On appeal the defendant bank said that, in the absence of dishonesty, its change of position defence should have succeeded. After a consideration of numerous authorities, this court disagreed and adopted the trial judge’s broader test, cited above. Clarke LJ quoted with approval (at paras 164/5) the following passages in Moore-Bick J’s judgment:

“I do not think that it is desirable to attempt to define the limits of good faith; it is a broad concept, the definition of which, in so far as it is capable of definition at all, will have to be worked out through the cases. In my view it is capable of embracing a failure to act in a commercially acceptable way and sharp practice of a kind that falls short of outright dishonesty as well as dishonesty itself.”’

  1. In (1) Barlow Clowes International Ltd. (in liquidation) (2) Nigel James Hamilton and (3) Michael Anthony Jordon v (1) Eurotrust International Limited (2) Peter Stephen William Henwood and (3) Andrew George Sebastian the Privy Council considered the ambiguity in the Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 judgment. The former case clarified that there was a combined test for considering the behaviour of a party: what the party knew at the time of a transaction and how that party’s action would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.

  2. Therefore, as the applicant has submitted, there is a combined test for considering the behaviour of the primary respondent. I must take account of what the primary respondent knew at the time it adopted its name and how its adoption of the name would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.

  3. At Section 3 of the Form CNA2, the primary respondent indicated that it relies upon the defence that its name was adopted in good faith. Its statements made in this form, repeated by Mr Elkhadra in his witness statement, can be summarised as follows:

  • The primary respondent was named after Berkeley Square, what it describes as “one of the most famous squares in central London”;
  • Mr Elkhadra and his friends meet socially there;
  • The choice of name had nothing to do with “The Berkeley Hotel”;
  • The primary respondent’s name was available to register at Companies House;
  • There are many companies around Berkeley Square that trade under names that include the word “Berkeley”;
  • The primary respondent has nothing to do with hotels or any accommodation services.

  1. The applicant draws attention to the fact that Mr Elkhadra’s claim that the primary respondent’s name was available to register, and that research undertaken revealed companies registered whose name contains the word “Berkeley”, is not supported by any evidence. It is correct that Mr Elkhadra’s narrative evidence is not supported by corroborative evidence, but there is no reason to doubt his statements. Clearly, the name was available as the primary respondent was incorporated under the name, something that would not have been possible if the name was not available. In respect of the assertion that there are other companies registered that incorporate “Berkeley”, Mr Elkhadra provides a number of names. However, this evidence, even if accepted at face value, does not assist the primary respondent because it does not show that Berkeley Square is abbreviated to “Berkeley”.  

  2. In its written submissions, the applicant claims that:

  • in respect of the Mr Elkhadra’s claim that “Berkeley [S]quare or the name Berkeley is for every Londoner that lived in London ….” is unsupported by any evidence;
  • there is nothing to suggest that people familiar with Berkeley Square would abbreviate the name to “Berkeley”;
  • The primary respondent’s claims are unimaginative, overly convenient and implausible.

  1. In respect of the applicant’s first point even if Berkeley Square “is for every Londoner that lived in London” (a phrase that I take as the primary respondent claiming that any Londoner should be free to use the name “Berkeley Square” in their company name) it does not assist the primary respondent because its name does not include the name “Berkeley Square”. The absence of evidence, therefore, would not assist me in reaching a decision in this case. In respect of whether the word “Berkeley is for every Londoner”, it is not obvious to me why this should be the case and I, therefore, agree with the applicant that, in the absence of evidence to support this contention, I should dismiss it. By extension, there is no evidence that Berkeley Square would be abbreviated to “Berkeley” and I agree with the applicant on this point.

  2. Taking account of the reputation of the applicant’s hotel and Mr Elkhadra’s statement that he was very familiar with the part of London close to the hotel is situated, I consider it likely that the primary respondent was aware of the hotel and its name at the time the primary respondent’s name was chosen.  

  3. The applicant’s final point is that the primary respondent’s reasons for choosing its name are unimaginative, convenient and implausible. I consider the claim that the defence is unimaginative and convenient is, of itself, of little persuasive value. After all, the truth is not always imaginative or inconvenient. That said, when considered in the context of plausibility, I consider that the applicant’s argument has more weight. The services that the primary respondent’s name refers are “concierge” services and such services includes concierge services for hotels. Further, concierge services are commonly provided by hotels. The supply of such services under the primary respondent’s name would, therefore, create an immediate and strong link to the applicant and create an erroneous message that the services are provided by the applicant or an economically connected business.               

  4. Therefore, I am not persuaded by the defence made on behalf of the primary respondent and agree with the applicant that the primary respondent’s name was not adopted in good faith. The primary respondent’s defence fails.

The interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent

  1. The primary respondent does not provide any clear submissions or evidence in respect of this defence despite the onus being upon it to do so. I have already found the primary respondent’s name to be sufficiently similar. It is also relevant that the word “concierge” present in the primary respondent’s name is a descriptive word that describes services that are provided by the applicant as part of its hotel business. For the same reasons that the names are sufficiently similar, there is a prima facie reason why, upon encountering the primary respondent’s name, a customer or potential customer of the applicant may believe that there is a connection to the applicant and creates a possibility that the applicant’s interests will be affected.

  2. The applicant’s hotel is identified as “The Berkeley” and so the public will be exposed to the name. It is clear that both parties may provide the same services i.e. hotel concierge services. Further, the primary respondent may also provide concierge services in non-hotel contexts but such services may be perceived as an extension of The Berkeley Hotel’s own concierge service. This will increase the likelihood of an impact upon the interests of the applicant. As the applicant submits, adverse effects are not confined to a diversion of trade and includes a real risk of injurious association and reputational damage in circumstances where the primary respondent’s services are sub-standard. This example illustrates that the use of the primary respondent’s name could lead to the applicant losing control of its reputation.   

  3. Therefore, there remains a real risk that the applicant’s interests are adversely affected and this defence fails.

Outcome

  1. The application is successful.

  2. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act, I make the following order:
    (a) Berkeley Concierge Limited shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;
    (b) Berkeley Concierge Limited and Mohamad Elkhadra 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.

  1. In accordance with section 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.

  2. In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, the Company Names Tribunal 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.

  3. All respondents, including the co-respondent, have a legal duty under section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Act 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.

Costs

  1. The Tribunal awards costs from the published scale at paragraph 10 of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction.  This is intended to provide a contribution to costs, but not to recompense the successful party.  It is the applicant who has been successful in these proceedings and is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I award costs in favour of the applicant, as follows:  

Preparing the Form CNA1 and considering the Form CNA2 £400

Fee for filing the Form CNA1                                                 £150

Filing evidence and considering the other side’s evidence           £800

CNA3 fee                                                                             £150

Preparing and filing written submissions                                £300

Total                                                                                    £1400

  1. Berkeley Concierge Limited and Mohamad Elkhadra, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay The Berkeley Hotel Limited the sum of £1400.  This sum is to be paid within twenty-one days of the expiry of the period allowed for appeal or, if there is an appeal, within twenty-one days of the conclusion of the appeal proceedings (subject to any order of the appellate court).

Appeal

  1. Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to uphold the application; there is no right of appeal in relation to costs. Any notice of appeal must be given within one month of the date of this decision.  Appeal

is to the High Court in England Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.  The Tribunal must be advised if an appeal is lodged.

Dated   17 July 2025

Mark Bryant                                                                                              

Company Names Adjudicator                

  1. The Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, the commencement date of which being the same as that for section 1 of the Economic Crime etc Act, namely 4 March 2024 ↩

  2. Botanica Agriculture and Extraction Limited v. Botanica Limited [2022] EWHC 2957 (Ch) at [13] – [15] ↩

  3. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [3] ↩

  4. Ditto at [4] ↩

  5. Exhibit KW1 ↩

  6. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [5] and Exhibit KW2 ↩

  7. Ditto at [6] and Exhibit KW3 ↩

  8. At Exhibit KW4 ↩

  9. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [8] ↩

  10. At Exhibit KW5 ↩

  11. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [9] and excerpts from the applicant’s financial reports provided at Exhibit KE6 ↩

  12. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [10] ↩

  13. Ditto at [11] ↩

  14. Ditto at [12] ↩

  15. At Exhibit KW7 ↩

  16. Mr Wylde’s witness statement at [13] ↩

  17. Ditto at [14] ↩

  18. At Exhibit KW9 ↩

  19. concierge, n. meanings, etymology and more Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com) ↩

Back to top