Decision

Decision on CSC Directors Limited

Published 20 October 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5755

For a change of company name of registration No. 16211137

Decision

The company name CSC DIRECTORS LIMITED has been registered since 27 January 2025 under number 16211137.

By an application filed on 20 January 2026, CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 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 2 February 2026, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail UK “Tracked 48 With Signature” service. On 2 February 2026, the Tribunal wrote to Christopher Syrda to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Christopher Syrda in relation to this request. It was subsequently noted that the letters dated 2 February 2026 contained a clerical error regarding dates and as such they were re-issued and on 2 March 2026, a copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail UK “Tracked 48 With Signature” service. It was returned “not collected”. On 2 March 2026, the Tribunal wrote to Christopher Syrda to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Christopher Syrda in relation to this request.

On 10 March 2026, the respondent contacted the Tribunal to request the application be struck out. In response, on 27 March 2026, the Tribunal issued a preliminary view that the request that the application be struck out had been considered but it did not appear to the Adjudicator that the claim was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success or was otherwise misconceived and it was the Adjudicator’s view that this was a case that should be decided on the merits of the claims made by each party and the evidence and legal arguments brought before the Tribunal. The preliminary view of the Adjudicator was to refuse the request to strike out the application. The parties were advised that if either side objected to the preliminary view, they could request to be heard by filing a Form CNA4 together with the required fee of £100 by 10 April 2026. If no such request was received, the preliminary views were to become final.

On 4 April 2026, the respondent filed a “skeleton argument” requesting it be referred to the adjudicator and considered as a renewed application for strike-out under rule 5(2) or, alternatively, an application for directions requiring the Applicant to provide full particulars of its case; and, if the Tribunal considered it appropriate, an application to determine this renewed strike-out issue on paper and without a hearing. Also, on 4 April 2026, the respondent filed its submission regarding the change of company name.

On 7 April 2026, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to advise them that CSC DIRECTORS LIMITED had changed its name to CSC EXECUTIVES LIMITED and that the application, therefore, appeared to be without object and the Tribunal was minded to close the case. The parties were granted a period of two weeks, that is, on or before 21 April 2026 to state whether they agreed to the closing of the case. On 21 April 2026, the applicant advised it did not agree to the closing of the case and confirmed that it wished to maintain the objection and for the proceedings to continue, submitting that the change of company name does not address the concerns set out in its application filed on 20 January 2026. On 21 April 2026, the respondent filed comments regarding the applicant’s continuing objection to the new name and stated that it agreed with the Tribunal that the application was without object and the case should be closed.

The Tribunal wrote to the parties on 6 May 2026 to address various points. The Tribunal notified that further to the official letter dated 27 March 2026, no request for a hearing had been received and therefore the preliminary view was confirmed. Also the parties were advised that as no CNA2 and fee had been submitted by the specified deadline and in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had filed a submission in defence of its company name. This submission had not been accompanied by the appropriate form and fee required to request an extension to the specified deadline for filing a defence. The respondent was granted a period of 14 days to make such a request on form CNA 5 with a fee of £100 on or before 20 May 2027. If a request in the specified format was not received, the parties were advised that the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006. With regards to the change of company name, the Tribunal noted that, in its letter dated 21 April 2026, the applicant had stated that it objected to the new company name and wished the proceedings to continue and the respondent had filed a further submission on the same date.

The parties were advised that the Tribunal had noted the comments filed by both parties in relation to the change of name and the adjudicator had decided the proceedings would continue. The parties were granted a period of 14 days for either party to make a request for a hearing by filing a CNA 4 Form, together with a fee of £100; on or before 20 May 2027. If no hearing was requested within this term, the parties were advised that the adjudicator will consider making an order. On 7 May 2026, the tribunal noted a clerical error regarding dates and confirmed the specified deadlines to be 20 May 2026.

On 9 May 2026, the respondent’s director Christopher Syrda contacted the Tribunal to notify that with effect from 5 May 2026, he had resigned his position as a director of the company and requested his name be removed from tribunal records and on 14 May 2026, Christopher Syrda requested clarification of his status in the continuing proceedings following his resignation as director.

On 20 May 2026, the applicant filed form CNA4 “request for a hearing”. In response, on 21 May 2026, the respondent filed submissions in relation to the applicant’s request for a hearing and regarding his resignation as director of the respondent company. He wanted the submissions and skeleton argument he had previously filed to be accepted as a defence in the proceedings.

Following a review of the case, on 28 August 2026 the Tribunal wrote to the parties to address various points raised in the proceedings; that is, the change of company name, the lack of a defence being filed, the status of Christopher Syrda and the applicant’s request for a hearing. It was explained to the respondent that Rule 3(4) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 required a counterstatement to be filed on the appropriate form, which was Form CNA2. Rule 2(2) of the same Rules states that “Where a form is required to be used by these Rules that form shall be accompanied by the fee, if any, specified in the Schedule in respect of that matter.” The Schedule states that the fee for a Form CNA2 is £150. Therefore, the letter continued, the Tribunal was unable to accept a defence in any other form and/or without the required fee. As this explanation was not given in time for Mr Syrda to meet the deadline of 20 May 2026 for filing a request for extension of time, the Adjudicator gave a further 14 days from the date of the letter (i.e., 11 September 2026) for an extension of time request to be filed on Form CNA5 and accompanied by the required fee of £100. The respondent was advised that, if a request were not received, the Adjudicator may deem that the application is undefended.

In respect of Mr Syrda’s request for a confirmation of his status in the proceedings, it was explained that Section 69(3) of the Companies Act 2006 states that: “Any of the following may be joined as respondents- (a) any member or person who was a member at the time at which the name was registered. (b) any director or person who was a director at the time at which the name was registered.” This meant that the fact that a person is no longer a director of a company is not a bar to their being joined as a co-respondent. The important date is the date on which the name was registered, and in this case that is 27 January 2025. (In any event, the Tribunal became aware that Mr Syrda was re-appointed as a director on 31 July 2026).

Mr Syrda has requested confirmation of his status with regard to these proceedings. On 9 May 2026, he notified the Tribunal that he was no longer a director of Company No. 16211137. The Tribunal is aware that he was re-appointed as director on 31 July 2026. The Adjudicator has considered Christopher Syrda’s comments on this point.

Christopher Syrda was joined to the proceedings as a co-respondent, as requested by the applicant, because he was a Director of the company at the date on which the company name was registered. The adjudicator decided that Christopher Syrda is jointly and severally, with the primary respondent, liable for the costs in the proceedings. If the application is successful, Christopher Syrda would have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(i) of the Companies Act 2006 to take all steps as are within his power to make or facilitate the making of a change of name to one which is not an offending name. If the name is not changed by the date ordered to a name which is not an offending name, the Adjudicator will determine a new name for the company. Under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006, Christopher Syrda will also have a legal duty 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. A period of 14 days from the date of this letter was provided for the co-respondent to make a request for a hearing; so, any request must have been made on or before 11 September 2026.

On 4 September 2026, the applicant contacted the Tribunal stating that it noted that the defence had not yet been filed and that the Adjudicator has granted an extension until 11 September 2026 for the filing of the defence. The applicant confirmed that, in the meantime, should a defence be filed and the proceedings continue, the applicant wished to be heard in this matter.

Following the expiry of the extended deadline of 11 September 2026, the case was referred to the adjudicator to notify that no “notice of defence”, had been received from the respondent, and no “request for an extension of time” had been filed. It was also notified that no further comment or request for a hearing had been received from Christopher Syrda in relation to his being joined to the proceedings as co-respondent.

The adjudicator determined that the proceedings should continue and the application considered to be unopposed and referred for an order under section 73(1).

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3), nor within the extended period allowed (11 September 2026). 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) CSC EXECUTIVES LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) CSC EXECUTIVES LIMITED and Christopher Syrda 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.

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order CSC EXECUTIVES LIMITED and Christopher Syrda, being jointly and severally liable, to pay CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 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 21 October 2026     

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator