Decision

Decision on Ernst & Young Estate Ltd

Published 23 July 2025

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5262

For a change of company name of registration No. 13539818

Decision

The company name ERNST & YOUNG ESTATE LTD has been registered since 4 July 2022 under number 13539818. Prior to this, the company was called ERNST & PACIOLI LTD incorporated on 30 July 2021.

By an application filed on 21 January 2025, EYGN 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 21 February 2025, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and also by standard mail. On 21 February 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” were returned “not called for”. No comments were received from Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal in relation to this request.

On 21 March 2025, Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal, on behalf of the respondent, contacted the Tribunal by email and submitted a letter dated 17 March 2025 which contained a detailed response to the application. On 26 March 2025, in a response by email, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the respondent’s communication and referred the respondent to the content its letter dated 21 February 2025 which set out how the respondent may file a defence to the application, if it so wished. The Tribunal also provided links to the Company Names Tribunal Practice Direction and to form CNA2 “notice of defence” and information relating to the £150 fee for form CNA2. The respondent was advised that if it chose not to file a form CNA 2 together with the £150 fee, this could mean the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006. No further communication was received from the respondent.

On 23 April 2025, Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqba were joined as co-respondents. On 23 April 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.

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) ERNST & YOUNG ESTATE LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name name; (b) ERNST & YOUNG ESTATE LTD, Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal 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.

EYGN LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order ERNST & YOUNG ESTATE LTD, Md Faruq Hossain and Muhammad Aftab Iqbal, being jointly and severally liable, to pay EYGN LIMITED 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 17th July 2025

Susan Eaves Company Names Adjudicator