Decision

Decision on Glover Priest Ltd

Published 27 February 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5466

For a change of company name of registration No. 14997173

Decision

The company name GLOVER PRIEST LTD has been registered since 24 April 2025 under number 14997173. Prior to this, the company was called GLOVER PRIEST LEGAL LTD from 17 April 2025 to 24 April 2025 and NLJPUBS LTD incorporated on 12 July 2023.

By an application filed on 12 June 2025, GLOVER PRIEST SOLICITORS 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 8 July 2025, 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” service. It was returned “addressee gone away”. On 8 July 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Neil Brookes and Steven Donald Currie to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. On 17 August 2025, in response, Steven Donald Currie, contacted the Tribunal by email stating:

With ref to letter received re changing of company name. Firstly I am not company director of glover priest Ltd, i was only a 60% shareholder. I do not have any part or know of this request to change the name . I have spoken to Mr Neil Brooke’s to remove my name from the company months ago, Which still has not been put into place . I would appreciate if you could you please remove my name from anything to do with Glover Priest Ltd, and Mr Neil Brookes. ASAP.

The Tribunal responded by email on 1 September 2025 advising Steven Donald Currie that he was listed on the Companies House register as a person with significant control and reiterated the deadline of 8 September 2025 for any submissions regarding this matter. The Tribunal also advised Steven Donald Currie that it was unable to remove his name from the register and that he would have to contact Companies House directly if he wished to do so.

On 15 October 2025, Neil Brookes and Steven Donald Currie were joined as co-respondents. On 15 October 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.

On 20 October 2025, in response, Steven Donald Currie, contacted the Tribunal by email stating:

Receiving the letter dated 15th October. I am asking if you can help me understand what this is about Originally i was just a silent partner for Glover priest Ltd. After a few months i parted friendship with Neil Brookes , and now have no contact with this man or company , i don’t know any contact details , phone address or email and wish to have my name removed from anything to do with glover priest ,( I have never heard of Glover Priest solicitors). Is there any way you can help me do this. As this is very worrying for me.

On 11 December 2025, the Tribunal responded by email and outlined the role of the Company Names Tribunal and the joining of co-respondents to the proceedings and referred Mr Currie to the Company Names Tribunal: practice direction 3.1.1 to 3.1.4. Mr Currie was advised that should he wish to request a hearing on this matter, he may apply for a retrospective extension of time to the deadline specified in the official letter dated 15 October 2025, by filing form CNA5 “request for an extension of time” with the form fee of £100, together with form CNA4 “request for a hearing” with the £100 form fee, with both to be submitted within two months of the deadline date of 29 October 2025, that is, on or before 29 December 2025. Mr Currie was also advised that on 15 October 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the respondent company, copied to himself, to set out the procedure on how the respondent company may file a defence to the complaint by the deadline of 29 October 2025, but that to date no defence has been submitted. A link to the Company Names Tribunal website was provided for further information. Mr Currie was also advised that the Tribunal was unable to remove his name from the register and that if he wished to make any changes, to either the company details or to remove his name from the register, he would have to contact Companies House directly.

For completeness, it is noted that the Companies House register shows that to date, Steven Donald Currie remains listed on the official record as a person with significant control. No request for a retrospective extension of time in which to request a hearing nor any request for a hearing was received by the deadline of 29 December 2025.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the two 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) GLOVER PRIEST LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) GLOVER PRIEST LTD, Neil Brookes and Steven Donald Currie 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 applicant is requesting its costs. In response to question 7 on the Form CNA 1 (“Did you warn the company that if it did not change its name that you would start legal proceedings against it? If “yes” when did you warn the company?”), the applicant states:

No, Respondent company appears to be carrying out fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. Report has been made to Action Fraud ref NFRC250607414219.

Further, at paragraph 13 of its Form CNA1, (“Why do you object to the registered company/limited liability partnership name?”) the applicant states:

Because they are impersonating the applicant company and appear to be carrying out fraud, having already misled a client of the applicant company into transferring £20,000 who believed they had been contacted by the applicant company.

On 29 January 2026, the adjudicator issued a preliminary view that absent further reasons, the alleged fraudulent behaviour of the primary respondent is not considered justification for a failure to give notice and as such, no award of costs will be made. 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.

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 26 February 2026    

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator