Decision

Decision on Green Lithium Energy Ltd

Published 22 July 2025

Companies Act 2006                    

In the matter of application No. 4809 by GREEN LITHIUM REFINING LIMITED for a change to the company name of GREEN LITHIUM ENERGY LTD, company registration No. 15489230.

Decision

1. The company name GREEN LITHIUM ENERGY LTD (“the primary respondent”) has been registered since 14 February 2024 under number 15489230.

2. By an application filed on 18 April 2024, GREEN LITHIUM REFINING LIMITED applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of Section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

3. A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 2 May 2024, in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The letter accompanying the application informed the primary respondent that if it wished to file a defence, it should complete a form CNA2 (notice of defence) and return it within the deadline of 2 July 2024 in accordance with Rules 3(3) and 3(4) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008.

4. The primary respondent did not file a defence within the deadline of 2 July 2024 specified by the adjudicator under Rule 3(3). Rule 3(4) states:

“The primary respondent, before the end of that period, shall file a counterstatement on the appropriate form, otherwise the adjudicator may treat it as not opposing the application and may make an order under section 73(1).”

1. On 19 July 2024, the Tribunal issued a “no defence letter” stating as follows:

“As no CNA 2 had been filed within the time period set, in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006.

However, in accordance with rule 5(3) either party has the right to be heard. The request must be made on form CNA 4. A fee of £100 must accompany form CNA 4. A period of 14 days from the date of this letter is provided for either party to make a request for a hearing; so any request must be made on or before 2 August 2024.

Co-respondent

Victor Ben Chidyausiku and Faith Rutendo Chidyausiku has been joined to the above proceedings as co-respondent. The adjudicator has decided that the co-respondent is jointly and severally liable with the primary respondent for the costs in the proceedings.

[…]

In accordance with rule 5(3) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 Victor Ben Chidyausiku and Faith Rutendo Chidyausiku has the right to be heard if this decision is disputed. The request must be made on form CNA4. The fee of £100 must accompany the form. A period of 14 days from the date of this letter is provided for you to make a request for a hearing; so any request must be made on or before 2 August 2024.”

1. No form CNA4 was received by the deadline of 2 August 2024.

2. Nevertheless, on 6 August 2024 the applicant informed the Tribunal that they had received a “purported form CNA4” from the primary respondent. They stated as follows:  

“On 6 August we received the attached purported form CNA4 from the Company. It is unclear whether it has also been sent to the Tribunal; we are forwarding it to the Tribunal in case it has not. In doing so we note that:

• the form appears to have been sent on 4 August 2024 - i.e. after the 2 August 2024 deadline prescribed by the Tribunal’s 19 July letter;

• the declaration has not been signed;

• it is not known whether the relevant £100 fee has been paid;

• the form does not explain why the Company did not file a defence (CNA2) by the relevant deadline, nor does it request a retrospective extension of that deadline. Rule 7(4) requires that requests for extensions of time must include reasons why the extra time is required and requests for retrospective extensions of time must also include reasons why the request is made out of time. The Company has done neither;

• the Company does not appear to seek to expressly invoke any of the defences under section 69(4) of the Act, nor does it appear to dispute the Applicant’s case under section 69(2) (i.e. the Company Name is sufficiently similar that it is likely to mislead), instead referring to the ‘same name’ test under section 66(1).

We shall await the Tribunal’s further directions in this application, which for the above reasons we submit ought to be the making of an order under rule 5(3) on the basis that the Company (i) has not filed a defence by the relevant deadline or at all, (ii) has not sought a retrospective extension of time for doing so, (iii) has not provided the information required for a retrospective extension of time in any event, (iii) appears not to have filed a compliant Form CNA4, (iv) has not submitted its purported CNA4 to the Tribunal in time (or perhaps at all) and/or does not appear to have requested a retrospective extension of time for the filing of its CNA4, nor provided the information that would justify such an extension, (iv) and/or appears to have neither sought expressly to rely on any section 69 defences nor denied the Applicant’s case under section 69(2) of the Act.”

1. Following this, on 19 August 2024, the caseworker wrote to Mr Chidyausiku in the following terms (emphasis added):

“….I refer to the attached letter received from the applicant in the above company names application.

We have been notified by the applicant that you copied a form CNA4 to them however, it appears this is the first time the Tribunal has had sight of this request.

Please note the deadline in which to request a hearing was 2 August 2024. It is also noted the form has not been signed in section 4 – Declaration.

It appears the hearing request is in response to the official letter of 19 July 2024. Please confirm if you wish to proceed with your hearing request and it is your intention to defend the application. If so, please send a copy of the form CNA4 with the completed fee sheet.

If it is your intention to defend the application, please note you will be required to explain why you did not file a defence (form CNA2) by the relevant deadline. Under Rule 7(4) requests for extensions of time must include reasons why the extra time is required and requests for retrospective extensions of time must also include reasons why the request is made out of time.

Please respond on or before 27 August 2024.

If no reply is received in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006.”

1. The Tribunal did not hear from Mr Chidyausiku until a week after when he sent an email stating as follows (with typos as in the original):

“….To clarify my position concerning CNA4 I completed the form with the appropriate fees prior to the deadline. I returned the form to the email address you supplied me.  The following day I got an email telling me hat there was an issue with your server and it would try to resubmit the email. I then decided to sent a copy to the applicant and to yourself via recorded mail. I also included the email print outs showing there was a fault with your system. I then followed that up with a phone call and spoke to your staff who also informed me that the letters would be sent to the adjudicator on arrival. Concerning the CNA2, I filled the form and submitted it before the deadline and I was under the impression that it had been received. Companies House Registrar team who assisted me when choosing the names informed me that I had not broken any laws and had done everything lawfully and right. Further they inform me that I had a right to choose those names as they were available. I know the applicant wishes  to trample over me as there is no sense of justice. I am therefore confirming my wish to proceed with the hearing request and my intention to defend the application.”

1. On 3 September 2024, the caseworker replied to Mr Chidyausiku observing that he alleged that the relevant forms were filed by the appropriate deadlines and asking him to send her a copy of the forms CNA2 and CNA4 with the completed fee sheets. The caseworker also liaised with her document reception department and finance team to investigate receipt of these forms.

2. On 5 September 2024, Mr Chidyausiku replied to the caseworker simply stating that he had already sent “the evidences and proof of payment by recorded mail”; however, he did not provide any tracking reference number.

3. On 6 September 2024, the caseworker replied to Mr Chidyausiku informing him that the forms CNA2 and CNA4 did not appear to have reached the electronic file and asking him to send the copies of these forms to enable her to investigate whether they had been received with the relevant departments. The caseworker also advised Mr Chidyausiku that no decision had been issued and that they would need to determine receipt of the relevant forms first.

4. Following an internal investigation, 30 September 2024, the caseworker emailed Mr Chidyausiku to confirm that the forms CNA4 and CNA2 had not been received. She also asked him to send any proof of delivery and payment for the fees and gave a deadline of 7 October 2024 to reply.  

5. On 06 October 2024, Mr Chidyausiku emailed the caseworker providing copy of an invoice which he claimed was “evidence of payment for the submission of CNA2”. This showed that on 6 August 2024 (after the deadline for the filing of both the CNA2 and the CNA4), Mr Chidyausiku paid £100, the payment being for “CNA4 COMPANY NAME TRIBUNAL REQUEST HEARING”. As it is abundantly clear, Mr Chidyausiku’s claim that the £100 was paid in relation to the filing of a defence (CNA2) is incorrect: the invoice plainly refers to the fee being paid for the filing of a hearing request, not a defence (the latter fees also being £150, not £100).

6. On 7 October 2024, Mr Chidyausiku sent a further email stating as follows (with typos as in the original):

“I have attached digital evidences of submission of both the CNA4 and CNA2 on both CNA@ipo.qov.uk and CNA@iDo.qov.uk

which emails were given to me by the tribunal to respond. I did exactly that within the time frames given.

The digital print shows the tribunal server trying to push through the email but encountering server errors.

This is clearly not a penalty I should pay for as the current Post Office saga shows many lives wrecked by a system error.

The bottom line is I submitted and yet the burden of proof has been erroneously applied into my shoulders.

After noticing the system error, I sent the documents by recorded mail.

My take for this case is that the die has already been cast.

The adjudicator already wrote to me her harsh judgement against me based on unfounded facts.

I’m not sure if all we are doing now is just to tick the boxes of a judgment long passed.

If this case is to be reviewed further, then I am requesting a different adjudicator as based on her letter she is has already shown her prejudice. She was under pressure to please the other side at the expense of justice”

1. Attached to that email was (1) a copy of a form CNA4 dated 31 July 2024 (not signed); (2) a copy of the invoice described above for “CNA4 COMPANY NAME TRIBUNAL REQUEST HEARING” and (3) a copy of a failed delivery notification (copied and pasted from documents which were not attached) of an email sent on 2 August 2024 to CNA@ido.qov.uk at 17:07. Significantly, attached to the form CNA4 there were two pages of text presented under the heading “Background and defence” in which Mr Chidyausiku made the following points:

• Mr Chidyausiku thought of setting up a company focusing on responsible Lithium mining and energy production as an alternative to Chinese production.

• The term Green is a general term Mr Chidyausiku adopted to highlight his proposition to an environmentally friendly approach to Lithium mining. It is a term used globally to refer to environmentally friendly activities and no one has any monopoly for its usage.

• Mr Chidyausiku approached Companies House to enquire about the registration of the contested company and they assured him that the name was available. Mr Chidyausiku believes that he is rightly and legally entitled to use the name GREEN LITHIUM ENERGY LTD for his company and he did not break any law. The name in question was properly accepted for registration by Companies House and did not contravene any of the provisions of section 66(1) of the Companies Act 2006.

1. On the same day, Mr Chidyausiku sent another email copying and pasting another failed delivery notification, this time of an email sent on 2 August 2024 to CNA@ipo.qov.uk at 17:07.

2. On 5 November 2024, Mr Chidyausiku emailed the caseworker again, referring to another case where he was involved as co-respondent, namely application number 4808, which relates to a different company, i.e. GREEN LITHIUM LTD registered since 14 February 2024 under number 15489220. In that case, a decision was issued on 24 August 2024 ordering the change of name, also for want of defence. Showing that the position was confused in respect to both the case itself and the date when the decision was issued in the other proceedings, Mr Chidyausiku stated:

“…I know you have said that the matter is with the adjudicator but back in September she passed judgment which was prejudiced against me and favoured the other party without even looking at my complaints that I did not contravene any Act of law.”

1. On the same day, the caseworker replied to Mr Chidyausiku explaining that the case he referred to was different from the one at issue in which they were investigating receipt of the forms CNA2 and CNA4.

2. I pause here for a moment. Notwithstanding the confusion arounds the forms CNA2 and CNA4, the documents filed demonstrated that Mr Chidyausiku paid the £100 fees for requesting a hearing on 6 August 2025. He also attempted to email a copy of a form to this Tribunal on 2 August 2024 (that was the deadline for requesting a hearing to challenge the no-defence letter, and it is a month after the deadline for filing a form CNA2 (i.e. a defence)). However, the email bounced back as a result of a misspelling. The correct email address to which the form should have been sent was, in fact, CNA@IPO.GOV.UK however, Mr Chidyausiku used CNA@IDO.QOV.UK and  CNA@IPO.QOV.UK, both of which were wrong as they spell ‘IDO’ (instead of ‘IPO’) and ‘QOV’ rather than ‘GOV’.  Further, although the CNA4 on file had not been signed, Mr Chidyausiku had clearly stated his intention to proceed with a hearing. Hence, I appointed a hearing for 06 February 2025. On 14 January 2025, a letter was sent to both parties setting out the boundaries for the discussion. It stated:

“The hearing is to discuss the no defence letter.

1. To date we have not received copy of the defence (form CNA2) or evidence that the defence has been filed (and that the relevant fees have been paid) within the deadline of 2 July 2024. It is for the co-respondent to provide such evidence if he wishes to maintain that he has defended his application by the given deadline of 2 July 2024.

2. If the co-respondent is unable to provide evidence that he has filed the defence (form CNA2) and that he has paid the relevant fees by the deadline of 2 July 2024, he will need to explain why he did not file a defence (form CNA2) by the relevant deadline. Under Rule 7(4) requests for extensions of time must include reasons why the extra time is required and requests for retrospective extensions of time must also include reasons why the request is made out of time.

[…]

Please also confirm with the Hearings team, the names and email addresses of all persons attending at least 7 days prior to the hearing and if you require a test beforehand let us know.”

1. On 26 January 2025, Mr Chidyausiku sent the Tribunal a copy of an email dated 23 May 2024 he received from a case manager at Companies House which stated as follows:

“Thank you for your email. The names in question were properly accepted for registration, as it does not contravene any of the provisions of section 66(1) of the Companies Act 2006. They are not the ‘same as’ a name which appeared on the Registrar’s Index of company names at the time they were registered. We have not received any objection regarding the company names however, we can only consider an objection from a registered company. Any dissolved company would not be able to object to a company name being too like their name. We can only consider existing and current names on the register. I note your comments regarding the company names tribunal. This is operated separately to Companies House and we would not be party to any decision which they may make. The Company Names Tribunal Adjudicator rules allow any person, organisation, or company to complain to the Company Names Tribunal if they believe the registration of a similarly named company was opportunistic. You may wish to contact the tribunal directly regarding this, I have provided their website link below….”

1. On 1 February 2025, Mr Harry Jewson from the applicant’s legal representative emailed the Tribunal confirming that he would be representing the applicant at the hearing and requesting the Tribunal to send him the joining details to his email address.

2. On 3 February 2025 (i.e. 3 days before the hearing) at 10:02 pm, Mr Chidyausiku emailed the Tribunal writing as follows:

“Dear Tribunal Hearing

Thank you for the letter informing of the oncoming Hearing scheduled for Thursday 06 February 2025 at 11:30 AM regarding the no defence letter.

I have attached my written submissions as I have no professional representative as required.

I have written my statement to the best of my knowledge.  I solemnly defend the names of these companies (5489230 - Green Lithium Energy LTD and  15489220 Green Lithium LTD) as legally miners they were formed legally under the guidance and advice of Companies house Registrar office. Their formation did not contravene ANY of the provisions of section 66(1) of the companies Act 2006. There was no similar name appearing on the Companies House Registrar’s Index of the company names AT THE TIME they were registered. Dissolved companies do not have a right to object to a company name being too like their name.

It is not true that I did not contest. Lithium Refineries are arguing that there was no contest and yet they know legally that their claims on the names are baseless. Therefore they are clutching at straws to brush over legality and be awarded their crooked claim.

I have set the record straight in the written submission as best as I know how. Thank you for taking time to listen to my side. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank and appreciate [the caseworker] for her professional manner in handling this case.”

1. Attached to the email, were five documents, which I describe below:

• A document called “written submissions” dated 3 February 2025. In it, Mr Chidyausiku claims that (a) when he applied for the respondent’s company, Companies House told him that there was only a company using the same name GREEN LITHIUM (10797976), but it was dissolved five months earlier; (b) Companies House confirmed to him that the applicant’s company (as well as another company applied for by Mr Chidyausiku) was accepted for registration as it did not contravene any provision of Section 66(1) of the Companies Act 2006; (c) in a letter, the applicant stated that GREEN LITHIUM LTD was the name of their company which they dissolved and all their business literature showed GREEN LITHIUM and no one could use that name – this argument is not lawful as the company is dissolved; (d) the applicant alleges that the respondent used the wrong address to characterise him as reckless – this is a false allegation as the addresses <CNA@ido.qov,uk> and CNA@ipo.qov.uk were given to him by the Company Names Tribunal; (e) that he insisted that he filed the CNA2 and paid the relevant fees (f) the preservation of the environment is at the heart of the respondent’s aims and this is the reason why the company’s name uses the word GREEN.

Significantly, in relation to point (e), Mr Chidyausiku filed nothing else in support, refiling a copy of an email dated 28 August 2024 that he sent to the caseworker as well as a copy of the failed delivery notification of 3 August 2024.

• A copy of the Form CNA4 Form (already on file).

• Copy of an undated letter addressed to The Company Names Tribunal Adjudicator stating as follows (with typos as in the original):

“Dear Company Names Tribunal Adjudicator

I received a letter on 19th July from […] of Company name Tribunal asking me to file Form CNA4 the right to be heard in accordance with rule 5(3) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. I was asked to send in the details before or on /8/2024 using the email CNA@ipo.qov.uk which she supplied to me.

I paid the fee of £100 and completed the form which I sent by email on the date as requested (Payment Ref: TRSMTD6HSR

Yesterday I received an email saying that the host server was not able to receive the email I sent due to a temporary problem. I have attached the printout.

I have written to you as I am afraid that the email system error in preventing reception of my response may be misinterpreted as a non-dispute and thereby perverting the course of justice.

Please accept my apologies as I have tried to comply with the request as best as I know.

Thank you for your consideration.”

• A copy of the invoice for the payment of the £100 fees for “CNA4 Company Name Tribunal Request Hearing” (already on file).

1. Nothing further was heard from Mr Chidyausiku and the hearing went ahead without him. Mr Harry Jewson appeared on behalf of the applicant.

2. At the hearing Mr Jewson made the following points:

• There is no sight of the form CNA2 (i.e. the defence) having been filed, and no sight of the relevant £150 fees having been paid within the relevant deadline of 2 July 2024 for filing a defence.  We know, for Mr Chidyausiku said so himself, that he attempted to file a Form CNA4 (i.e. request for a hearing) using the wrong email address on 2 August 2024 and he paid the relevant £100 fees; however, this was a request to be heard in order to challenge the no defence letter of 19 July 2024. Despite Mr Chidyausiku repeatedly being asked to provide proof of postage or fees for a defence and despite him (Mr Chidyausiku) repeatedly asserting that he had evidence of it, there is no evidence of a defence having been filed and corresponding fees having been paid on time (or at all).

• Mr Chidyausiku’s submissions tried to address the merits of the applicant’s application, but this was not what the hearing was for.  The hearing letter of 14 January 2025 made clear that the hearing was to discuss the no defence letter and that it was for the respondent to provide evidence that they filed a defence.

• Having clarified that his primary position was that it was not appropriate for the applicant to have to address the merits of the application, Mr Jewson noted that Mr Chidyausiku’s reference to Section 66 of the Companies Act is not pertinent as Section 66 applies to how Companies House deals with registrations of company names – i.e. it is not possible to register a name which is identical to another name. Instead, the relevant Section in these proceedings is Section 69, which deals with objectionable names allegedly registered for opportunistic or obstructive purpose.

• The respondent has never made a request for an extension of time to file a defence and has not provided any reasons which would justify an extension being granted.  It did not do so before the deadline for filing a defence and has not done so at any point afterwards. This was drawn to the respondent’s attention multiple times, including in the official letter of 19 August 2024 as well as in the hearing letter.

• The adjudicator should make a decision on the basis that no defence was filed within the relevant deadline and should issue an order for the company name to be changed. This was the adjudicator’s decision in relation to another Green Lithium company that the co-respondent incorporated at the same time.

• Rule 7(3) notes that any retrospective extension of time must be made within two months of the relevant deadline which would prevent the adjudicator from granting an extension ex-officio; but in any event the circumstances of the case are not so exceptional to justify the exercise of a discretion beyond that allowed by Rule 7(3). Whilst the respondent is a litigant in person, they were able to file a CNA 4 and written submissions.  They are able to engage when they want to.

1. As regards costs, Mr Jewson conceded that the applicant did not give prior notice so it would not be entitled to costs, though he asked for the costs of attending the hearing. 

Decision

1. Rule 3(4) of The Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 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).”

1. Under the provisions of this rule, the adjudicator may exercise discretion so as to treat the respondent as opposing the application.

2. In this case I can see no reason to exercise such discretion and, therefore, I decline to do so.

3. As Mr Jewson correctly observed at the hearing, both the respondent and Mr Chidyausiku (as the co-respondent) have had multiple chances to file the correct documents and prove that, as Mr Chidyausiku asserted, the defence (form CNA2) had been filed within the relevant deadline of 2 July 2024, and the official fees of £150 fees due with it had been paid. However, despite Mr Chidyausiku having been made aware that no form CNA2 or fees had been received, he re-sent the same documents, namely (i) copy of a form CNA4 requesting a hearing; (ii) copy of an email showing that a message sent on 2 August 2024 (after the deadline for filing the defence) bounced back because it was sent to the wrong email address, and (iii) copy of an invoice confirming the payment of the £100 fees due with the CNA4.  

4. The fact that Mr Chidyausiku requested a hearing to challenge the “no defence letter” does not, in itself, make good the failure of filing a defence and does not exonerate Mr Chidyausiku from the onus of proving his claim that the defence was filed within the relevant deadline of 2 July 2024, and the official fees of £150 fees due with it were paid. That is what the respondent was required to establish – however, it did not do so.

5. Everything else, including the claim that the word Green is descriptive, that the respondent’s aim in setting up the company is underlined by a collective good sense and that Companies House did not object to the registration as it was not contrary to the provision contained in Section 66, is irrelevant. First, even in circumstances where cases are defended, the fact that the company name was not objected to by Companies House under Section 66 is outside the remit of this Tribunal. Under Section 66, Companies House might in fact refuse to register a company name if it is the same as another name appearing in the registrar’s index of company names. Conversely, applications made under Section 69 (such as the present application), are dealt with by Company Names Adjudicators and relate to complaints about cases where a company name is registered for the primary purpose of preventing someone else with legitimate interest from registering it, or demanding payment from them to release it. Second, whilst the descriptiveness of an element of the name or the intent behind the registration might be relevant for the purpose of establishing, for example, that the application was made in good faith, for such argument to be considered the respondent must first file a defence indicating which category of defence it wishes to rely upon so that the relevant facts might be considered in the context of the appropriate defence. As no defence has been filed, these points are all irrelevant.

6. Lastly, Mr Chidyausiku did not make a request for an extension of time to file a defence and none of the facts he relied upon persuade me that it would be appropriate for me to exercise any discretion in his favour.

7. Accordingly, 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) GREEN LITHIUM ENERGY LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name.

(b) GREEN LITHIUM ENERGY LTD, Faith CHIDYAUSIKU and Victor Ben CHIDYAUSIKU, 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

1. In accordance with Section 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. GREEN LITHIUM REFINING LIMITED having been successful, would normally be entitled to a contribution towards its costs. However, as it did not give prior notice of this application in advance, I decline to make any awards of costs. In this connection, whilst it is true that the applicant’s costs have been increased by Mr Chidyausiku’s request for a hearing, to the extent that the applicant initially objected to such a request and also elected to attend the hearing, I consider that (1) although Mr Chidyausiku did not attend the hearing, he did file written subs in lieu, and being the respondent a litigant in person it is understandable he might have preferred to argue his case on the papers rather than in a hearing and (2) if the applicant had given notice, the parties might have been able to resolve the matter amicably and avoided the whole issue altogether.  

5. 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.

6. The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 15 July 2025

Teresa Pinto

Company Names Adjudicator

---