Decision

Decision on Bridgestone Management Consultancy Ltd

Updated 31 January 2021

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3068

For a change of company name of registration No. 12180817

Decision

The company name BRIDGESTONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY LTD has been registered since 30 August 2019 under number 12180817.

By an application filed on 14 November 2019, Bridgestone Corporation 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 6 December 2019, 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. On 6 December 2019, the Tribunal wrote to Alessandro Iori to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to the primary respondent and Mr Iori were returned to the Tribunal marked “RTS”. On 20 February 2020, Mr Iori was joined as a co-respondent. On 20 February 2020, 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 letters sent to the primary respondent and Mr Iori were returned to the Tribunal marked, inter alia, “RTS” “and “addressee gone away”. No request for a hearing was made.

As there was some uncertainty as to the address to which the letters of 20 February 2020 had been sent, on 26 August 2020, the Tribunal reissued the letters (joining Mr Iori to the proceedings and indicating that the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed), to the primary and co-respondent’s new address i.e. 2b The Old Garage, Park Road, London, TW13 6PN. A period expiring on 8 September 2020 was allowed for a hearing to be requested on these points. No request for a hearing was received either by the deadline set or by the date of the issuing of this decision.

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) BRIDGESTONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY 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) BRIDGESTONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY LTD and Alessandro Iori 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.

Bridgestone Corporation having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order BRIDGESTONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY LTD and Alessandro Iori being jointly and severally liable, to pay Bridgestone Corporation 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 27th October 2020

Christopher Bowen
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. ↩