Decision

Decision on Crown Estates UK Limited

Published 2 February 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5406

For a change of company name of registration No. 05952425

Decision

The company name CROWN ESTATES UK LIMITED has been registered since 2 October 2006 under number 05952425.

By an application filed on 13 May 2025, THE CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS 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 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 9 June 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Abdul Khuja and Tariq Qume Khuja to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Abdul Khuja and Tariq Qume Khuja in relation to this request. On 25 June 2025, the applicant contacted the tribunal by email to request suspension of the proceedings pending dissolution, due to an application for voluntary strike off recorded on Companies House register. On 21 July 2025, Abdul Khuja and Tariq Qume Khuja were joined as co-respondents and the parties were advised that at the request of the applicant, the proceedings were suspended for a period of two months pending dissolution of the respondent company. 

On 29 October 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to notify that the Companies House register had been updated to show the application to strike off the company had been suspended on 31 July 2025 and therefore these proceedings would resume. As such, on 6 November 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. 

In response, on 10 November 2025, Tariq Qume Khuja contacted the tribunal by email to advise there had been an objection to the strike off action and that the respondent was trying to have the company dissolved and required an extension of time to allow this process to be completed. On 18 November 2025, the Tribunal replied by email and advised that the process to dissolve a registered company is managed solely by Companies House. The tribunal referred to its letter dated 6 November 2025 which specified a deadline of 20 November 2025 for requesting a hearing and it also outlined the process for requesting an extension of time using form CNA5 “request for an extension of time” together with the £100 fee and providing reasons for the request.

No request for a hearing was made by 20 November 2025 and no extension of time request has been received.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3) and has not filed a request for an extension of time. 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) CROWN ESTATES UK LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;

(b) CROWN ESTATES UK LIMITED, Abdul Khuja and Tariq Qume Khuja 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. 

THE CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS 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 30 January 2026

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator