Decision

Decision on Intellipay UK Ltd

Published 5 June 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5665

For a change of company name of registration No. 16057486

Decision

The company name INTELLIPAY UK LTD has been registered since 4 November 2024 under number 16057486.

By an application filed on 7 November 2025, CONVENIENT PAYMENTS, LLC 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 20 November 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 With Signature” service. On 20 November 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Louis Sandy King to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Louis Sandy King in relation to this request. On 2 February 2026, Louis Sandy King was joined as a co-respondent. On 2 February 2026, 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 9 February 2026, Louis Sandy King wrote to the tribunal apologising for the delay in responding, stating that he is the only person who can deal with this issue within the company and had two losses within the family over December and January so had been away from the office. Mr King stated that he was happy to file a Form CNA 4 (with £100 fee) but asked if any hearing held would be virtual.

On 12 March 2026, in a response by email, the tribunal summarised the proceedings to date and advised as follows:

“….To confirm the position, Mr King’s options are these:

i           If content to change the name of the company to one that does not contain “Intellipay”, then the Tribunal will make a name change order and Mr King can choose a non-offending name at Companies House. This will entail no costs award against Mr King or Intellipay UK Ltd, since no warning was given before the name change application was filed by the Applicant before the Tribunal.

ii          In contrast, if Mr King wishes to attempt to retain the company name in the face of the goodwill claimed by the Applicant in its Form CNA1, then the Respondent will need to file a Form CNA 4 (with £100 fee) to request a hearing in order to explain and substantiate why it was not possible to file a defence by deadline. A hearing would be conducted by Teams video conference. If those reasons are accepted by the Adjudicator, the Respondent would then have to file a Form CNA 2 (with £150 fee), setting out which of the statutory defences it wishes to invoke. It will then be for the Applicant to file evidence (Form CNA3 with £150 fee) to substantiate its claims. The Respondent will then have an opportunity to file its own evidence (Form CNA3 with £150 fee) to support its claimed defence. It will be open to either party to request an oral hearing (a Form CNA 4 with £100 fee) to consider the substantive claims. Alternatively, parties may choose not to have an oral hearing on the substantive claims and just allow the matter to be decided from the papers filed. If the Applicant succeeds in its application, it will be entitled to a contribution to its costs from the Respondent; likewise, if the Respondent succeeds in its defence, it will be entitled to a contribution to its costs.”

The Respondent was given until no later than 28 March 2026, to confirm which of the two above courses of action it wished to take. If option (ii), the respondent was advised that Form CNA 4 (with £100 fee) must be filed by that date, with copy to the Applicant. The Respondent was also advised if it did not respond by 28 March 2026 or failed to submit the required form and fee, the Tribunal may proceed to make a name change order without further input from the company. No response has been received.

The Respondent did not file a defence within the two-month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3) and no request for a hearing was received by 28 March 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 a 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) INTELLIPAY UK LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) INTELLIPAY UK LTD and Louis Sandy King 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 the present case, that requires a name one that does not contain “Intellipay”.

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.

CONVENIENT PAYMENTS, LLC, having been successful, would normally be entitled to a contribution towards its costs. However, the applicant has confirmed that it did not contact the respondent prior to making the application. In accordance with 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice Direction 2014, an award of costs will not be made in this case.

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 4 June 2026 

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator