Decision

Decision on Ultra Tax Ltd

Published 29 August 2025

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-names-tribunal-decision-ultra-accountancy-limited/decision-on-ultra-accountancy-limited

Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4918 by Ultra Accountancy Limited for a change to the company name of Ultra Tax Ltd, a company incorporated under number 14610322.

Background and pleadings

1.  The company name Ultra Tax Ltd (“the primary respondent”) has been registered since 23 January 2023.

2.  By an application filed on 7 June 2024, Ultra Accountancy Limited (“the applicant”) applied under section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) for the primary respondent’s name to be changed.

3.  The applicant claims it is associated with the name “Ultra Accountancy Limited” and is in the field of business described as “accountancy, taxation, payroll, business assistance and book-keeping”. The applicant is also the owner of three trade marks, including no. 3854376 in respect of the mark “ULTRA” (registered on 3 March 2023).  The applicant claims it has used its trade mark “over many years, from at least 2016” and the company was incorporated on 7 November 2016. It claims that it has acquired significant goodwill in the business associated with the ULTRA trade mark and a reputation in the ULTRA trade mark in the UK.

4. The applicant claims that in the primary respondent’s name, Ultra Tax Ltd, it is the word “Ultra” that is the dominant and distinctive element being identical to its “ULTRA” name such that it is likely to mislead consumers by suggesting a connection to the applicant. It also asserts that the addition of the words “Tax Ltd” only enhances the confusion as it is non-distinctive as it merely implies that it is a related company in the same group as the applicant. Further, it states that the word “Tax” is not enough to distinguish the business from that of the applicant because tax and accounting are associated and intrinsically linked. It is claimed that, consequently, consumers may believe that the primary respondent is a branch connected or linked to the applicant leading to a likelihood of confusion and damage to its longstanding reputation and goodwill in its “ULTRA” name. I take this submission to be a claim that the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar, under section 69(1)(b) of the Act, to the name in which the applicant claims it has an attached goodwill/reputation.

5. The applicant claims that the primary respondent’s name was adopted in bad faith because it is inconceivable that the officers of the primary respondent were not aware of the goodwill in the applicant’s business and reputation in its trade mark.   

6. The applicant also states that it sent a letter to the primary respondent on 8 March 2024 (signed for on 11 March 2024) making it aware of the applicant and its trade marks and to request that it change its name and cease use of the name “Ultra Tax”. Despite being put on notice, the primary respondent attempted to register “Ultra Tax Ltd” as a trade mark on 21 March 2024 with a list of services identical to those of the applicant’s trade mark. The applicant claims that this demonstrates dishonest intentions and has fallen short of acceptable commercial behaviour.

7. The primary respondent filed a notice of defence and counterstatement. It accepts that the applicant has been trading since 7 November 2016, offers services online and has geographically widespread clients across the UK and that it has been shortlisted and won various awards. It denies that that the word “Ultra” is distinctive. It claims that the word is not inherently distinctive within the accountancy and tax services sector and is used descriptively to indicate high performance or quality. As such, it claims the word should remain available for use by businesses in the same sector. It also claims that the combination of “Ultra” with “Tax Ltd” creates a unique identifier specific to the primary respondent’s business. It also identifies that:

  • since incorporation on 23 January 2023 there have been no reported instances of confusion between the parties’ businesses;
  • the primary respondent serves a different market segment than the applicant;
  • the actual brandings used by the parties are distinct from each other;
  • the applicant has engaged in actions that has harmed the primary respondent’s business such as the unjust takedown of social media pages causing damage to the primary respondent’s online presence;
  • it has a contractual legal obligation for a sponsorship agreement that requires use of its current branding. There would be significant legal and financial repercussions for the business if it had to change its company name;
  • it has received prestigious accolades in recognition of its excellence within the industry and reflects that the primary respondent’s name was deliberately selected to reflect its commitment to excellence and specialisation in tax services.

8. The primary respondent relies upon the following two defences:

  • its name was adopted in good faith with no intention of capitalising on the applicant’s reputation or misleading consumers;
  • the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent citing the fact that it operates within a specific niche, primarily catering to small businesses, CIS contractors and sole traders within the construction industry as opposed to the applicant whose target market is established businesses with higher sales income and specific software requirements.

9. At the request of the applicant, Ellen Drewett, Connor Steven Thubron and John-Ross Thubron, directors of the primary respondent, were subsequently joined to the proceedings as co-respondents.

10.  The applicant was represented throughout these proceedings by HGF Limited. The primary respondent and co-respondents were unrepresented.

11. The parties both filed evidence and the applicant filed written submissions. These will be taken into account and will be referred to, to the extent that I consider it necessary. No hearing was requested and I make my decision after careful consideration of all the papers on file.

Evidence

12. The applicant’s evidence takes the form of the witness statement of Martin Hargreaves, Director of the applicant, a position he has held for eight years. Mr Hargreaves provides evidence regarding the similarity of services and the issue of bad faith. His witness statement is accompanied by Exhibits MH1 – MH33.

13. The respondents’ evidence is in the form of the witness statement of Ellen Drewett, Co-Founder and Director of the primary respondent. She provides comprehensive and lengthy rebuttal submissions and rebuttal evidence together with Exhibits ED1 – ED13.

14. The applicant’s evidence-in-reply is in the form of the witness statement of Lauren Richardson, Trade Mark Attorney at the applicant’s representative, HGF Limited, accompanied by Exhibits LR1 – LR14.   

Decision                                                   

15. Section 69 of the Act states:

“(1) A person (“the applicant”) may object to a company’s registered name on the ground—

(a) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or

(b) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom or elsewhere would be likely to mislead members of the public in the United Kingdom or elsewhere by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

(2) The objection must be made by application to a company names adjudicator (see section 70).

(3) The company concerned shall be the primary respondent to the application.

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.

(4) If the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is established, it is for the respondents to show—

(a) that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill; or

(b) …. [repealed by the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024]

(c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business; or

(d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

(e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

If none of those is shown, the objection shall be upheld.

(5) If the facts mentioned in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) are established, the objection shall nevertheless be upheld if the applicant shows that the main purpose of the respondents (or any of them) in registering the name was to obtain money (or other consideration) from the applicant or prevent him from registering the name.

(6) If the objection is not upheld under subsection (4) or (5), it shall be dismissed.

(7) In this section “goodwill” includes reputation of any description.”

Goodwill/reputation

16. Under section 69(1) the applicant must establish that it had a goodwill or reputation under the names upon which it relies at the date of the application,[footnote 1] in this case, 7 June 2024.   

17. The concept of goodwill was explained in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 at 223:

“What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define.  It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.”

18. Sections 69(1) and (7) stipulate that the applicant must have goodwill and that this includes reputation of any description. This must be proven in evidence. The applicant’s evidence relevant to demonstrating its goodwill/reputation can be summarised as:

  • the applicant was incorporated on 7 November 2016 and its name has been continuously used since that date;[footnote 2]
  • the applicant has extensively used the name “ULTRA ACCOUNTANCY” and trade mark “ULTRA” in the UK leading to a significant reputation and acquired goodwill in the name in connection of a list of services that includes accountancy, tax planning, tax return services, tax assessment preparation services and accountancy advice relating to taxation;[footnote 3]
  • “Ultra Accountancy” is a Chartered Certified Accountancy firm based in Wakefield;[footnote 4]
  • The applicant’s website www.ultraaccountancy.co.uk was registered on 5 October 2014.[footnote 5] The applicant has consistently posted on the website since at least 2018 and illustrated by historical extracts obtained from the Internet archive “Wayback Machine”;[footnote 6]
  • There is also an “Ultra Accountancy” LinkedIn page, created in December 2016, that customers can view. The applicant has consistently posted information about the company and its services on this page;[footnote 7]
  • The applicant’s services assist customers and businesses with bookkeeping, credit control, payroll set ups, tax returns and accounting software etc. and a price list for its services is provided;[footnote 8]
  • “Currently” (the witness statement is dated 4/11/24), the applicant has over 200 clients from different regions around the UK.[footnote 9] Redacted information regarding the addresses of its clients is provided listing about 250 unnamed clients, the majority of which are in Yorkshire but with some in other areas around the UK.[footnote 10]Invoices with the name “Ultra Accountancy” appearing in the top lefthand corner are provided to show customers around the UK;[footnote 11]
  • The applicant has increased its workforce from 2 to 4 persons between 2017 and 2023 and it has “recently” signed a lease for a second Yorkshire premises;[footnote 12]
  • The applicant provides the following sales and revenue figures:[footnote 13]
Year Revenue (£’s)
2017 £30,111
2018 £70,761
2019 £122,334
2020 £165, 640
2021 £183,560
2022 £174,440
2023 £203,123
2024 £275,00 (forecast)
  • The applicant has provided the following amounts invested in promoting its services:[footnote 14]
Year Expenditure (£’s)
2018 £1,998
2019 £1,870
2021 £2,771
2022 £957
2023 £1,511
2024 £1,000
  • the applicant’s promotional activities are predominantly online and on social media platforms such as LinkedIn and X. Promotional materials such as business cards, posters, newsletters, mugs, tea coasters, note pads etc. are also used and all bear the name “Ultra Accountancy”;[footnote 15]
  • a significant amount of the applicant’s exposure comes from third party reviews, recommendations and articles about the services it offers. The business has over 50 “google star reviews” and it is claimed that this demonstrates a strong reputation throughout the UK. Screenshots of these reviews are provided;[footnote 16]
  • the applicant and one of its accountants, Aimee Hargreaves, regularly feature in articles to customers and this is claimed to reflect the high quality of the services provided.[footnote 17] Ms Hargreaves has also featured in Topic UK Business Magazine and the Kirklees Business News. The former is a printed and online magazine that features business advice from across the Yorkshire region. Copies of both articles are provided.[footnote 18].Blog posts for customers are also provided on its website and Ms Hargreaves featured in a guest blog on the website www.sayerssolutions.co.uk in 2022;[footnote 19]
  • the applicant has been nominated for numerous awards[footnote 20] and was:
    • shortlisted for the “Yorkshire Accountancy Awards” in 2018
    • awarded the SME News Finance Award in 2019, 2021 and 2022;
    • included in the Digital Enterprise Top 100 in 2020 and 2021;
  • the applicant has attended various networking events, participated in webinars and appeared on podcasts to promote the company and its services;[footnote 21]

19. In the primary respondent’s evidence, Ms Drewett submits that the applicant’s reputation and goodwill, if any, is tied to the trading name “Ultra Accountancy” and not the standalone word “Ultra” being a non-distinctive word.[footnote 22] I agree with the first part of this submission because the evidence shows that the applicant refers to itself as “Ultra Accountancy”. The only exception is the reviews section of the applicant’s website that is entitled “Ultra Reviews”. A couple of the third-party reviews shown in that section of the website, refer to the applicant as “Ultra” but all of the others refer to “Ultra Accountancy”.[footnote 23]

20. The evidence illustrates that the applicant is a small company that has recently increased its staffing from two to four and has until recently operated from a single premises. Its promotional spend is very modest with it only exceeding £2000 once in the last six years. Its turnover is also modest but has been rising each year. This illustrates that Ultra Accountancy has built up a clear but relatively modest goodwill. Taking all of the applicant’s evidence into account, I find that it has the requisite goodwill required under section 69(1) and section 61(7) of the Act and that goodwill is attached to the sign “Ultra Accountancy”.   

Are the names the same or “sufficiently similar”?

21. The primary respondent’s name must also be “sufficiently similar” to the name in which the applicant enjoys goodwill/reputation in the UK such that it would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between them. The name in which the applicant enjoys goodwill is “Ultra Accountancy”.

22. The primary respondent submits that the word ULTRA, common to both parties’ names is descriptive and used in business to indicate high performance or quality. Whilst the word appears to have many meanings, the following appears most relevant to the circumstances before me:

“Going beyond what is usual or ordinary; excessive, extreme, immoderate”[footnote 24]

23. Keeping the above meanings in mind, it appears to me that, in the context of a company or trading name, the word is allusive of going beyond the usual and, in the circumstances of these proceedings, is not directly descriptive of either tax services or accountancy services.

24. The words “Tax” and “Accountancy”, whilst being different words can both be used in a descriptive way in the field of accountancy, as illustrated by the following meanings:

Tax

“A compulsory contribution to the support of government, levied on persons, property, income, commodities, transactions, etc., now at fixed rates, mostly proportional to the amount on which the contribution is levied”[footnote 25]

Accountancy

“The art of formally recording, classifying, and interpreting financial transactions and associated events, and of calculating taxes due, esp. within the context of a business; the profession, practice, or duties of an accountant…”[footnote 26]

25. It is clear from these meanings that “accountancy” is a descriptive word for the activities of an accountant and that some of these activities relate to “tax”.  

26. The word “Limited” and its abbreviation “Ltd” are both indications of the same corporate legal status. I consider that the “Ltd” element of the primary respondent’s name should be ignored for the purposes of the comparison (see, for example, MB Inspection Ltd v Hi-Rope Ltd [2010] RPC 18 at paragraph 48).

27. Taking all of the above into account, “Ultra” is the element that provides both the applicant’s sign “Ultra Accountancy” and the primary respondent’s name “Ultra Tax Ltd” with distinctiveness. This is because, although “Ultra” is a commonplace English word as a prefix or adverb (and has an allusive role in the names), the remaining words in both parties’ names are descriptive or indicative of the services provided and, in the case of “Ltd”, the corporate legal status of the primary respondent. Taking account of the distinctive role of the word “Ultra” in both the applicant’s sign and the primary respondent’s name, I find that the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to the applicant’s sign because they share the word “Ultra” and because they both use words indicating the services provided by, for example a firm of accountants. Consequently, I find that use of the primary respondent’s name in the UK would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between it and the applicant’s business.

28. I note that this finding is consistent with the preliminary indication issued in respect of the applicant’s trade mark opposition no. 447165 (where it relied upon its earlier trade mark “Ultra”) filed against the primary respondent’s trade mark application to register “Ultra Tax Ltd” where the Trade Mark Registry stated that the view “that the similarity between the respective marks and the identity/similarity between the services at issue is sufficient to result in a likelihood of confusion.”[footnote 27]

29. The applicant points to the nature of business (the SIC code) of the primary respondent being recorded on the Companies Register as “Accounting and auditing activities” and that services in relation to tax are included in accountancy services.[footnote 28] The primary respondent contends that this is because SIC codes are only a broad classification and cannot and should not be used to define the nature of a business. I accept that the SIC code chosen can be only of limited value in cases before this tribunal (not least because they are not binding upon a company), but it does, in this case, confirm what is shown in the evidence, namely, that both parties operate in the field of accountancy. The fact that they may possibly currently operate in slightly different sectors of accountancy with different target customers, does not remove the fact that (i) it would be a natural extension to either side’s business to move into activities closer or the same as the other currently provides or (ii) for customers and potential customers to assume that, despite serving slightly different needs of customers, the businesses are related because of the common occurrence of the word “Ultra” in their names.

Defences

30. The applicant has successfully demonstrated that it had the requisite goodwill/reputation and I have found that the respective names are sufficiently similar. Therefore, the onus switches to the respondents to establish their defence. There are two defences relied upon and I consider these below.

Was the name adopted in good faith, with no intention of capitalising on the applicant’s reputation or misleading consumers

31. It is evident from the wording of section 69(4) of the Act that the onus is on the respondents to show that the contested name was adopted in good faith.

32. In (1) Barlow Clowes International Ltd. (in liquidation) (2) Nigel James Hamilton and (3) Michael Anthony Jordon v (1) Eurotrust International Limited (2) Peter Stephen William Henwood and (3) Andrew George Sebastian the Privy Council considered the ambiguity in the Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 judgment. The former case clarified that there was a combined test for considering the behaviour of a party: what the party knew at the time of a transaction and how that party’s action would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.

33. In Harrisons Trade Mark Application (“Chinawhite”) [2004] FSR 13 Pumfrey J

commented:

‘14 Mr Engelman’s argument was a direct challenge to the hearing officer’s approach to the question of good faith, but he also objected that it was not open to the hearing officer to infer bad faith from the facts, which he maintained was contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Davy v Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473 at 489. This I think is a misapprehension as to the scope of the decision in Davy v Garrett. That case was dealing with fraud in a different context. In this field context is everything. The words “bona fide” or “good faith” are what are sometimes called chameleon words and take their content and their colour from their surroundings. Once the hearing officer had decided that the correct approach was that which I think he may well have been bound to accept, it was open to him to find that objectively the behaviour of the application did not satisfy the second half of the formulation. The word “inference” itself has a wide meaning, as Robert Walker L.J. demonstrates in REEF Trade Mark [2003] R.P.C. 5. This was not a question of drawing an inference at all. It was a question of coming to a secondary finding of fact on all the material. I do not consider that the hearing officer’s decision is open to challenge on this ground and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed.’

34. Therefore, as the applicant has submitted, there is a combined test for considering the behaviour of the primary respondent. I must take account of what the primary respondent knew at the time it adopted its name and how its adoption of the name would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.

35. The applicant submits that the primary respondent’s name was selected and adopted in bad faith. It points to its “longstanding goodwill and reputation in the Accountancy and Taxation field and has operated under the ULTRA name since 2016.” As a result, it claims, “it is inconceivable that the Officers of the company complained of were not aware of this when registering the company …”  

36. The primary respondent submits that there was “no intention of capitalising on the Applicant’s reputation or misleading consumers.” It states that the name was carefully selected to reflect its focus on tax services, differentiating itself from the Applicant’s broader accountancy services. It also states that at the time of its incorporation it was unaware of the Applicant’s trade marks and business operations because there had been no reported confusion or interaction between it and the applicant. It submits that this demonstrates that its name was chosen independently and without malintent.

37. The primary respondent stated opinion is that the word “Ultra” is not inherently distinctive within the accountancy and tax services sector and that it is a common term used descriptively across various industries. As a result, it considers that the addition of “Tax Ltd” to its name distinguishes it from the applicant and its broader service offering. I have already discussed how I don’t agree with the primary respondent’s opinion.  However, the fact that the primary respondent takes a different view of matters does not provide any helpful information regarding the motives for choosing its name, nor whether it was chosen in good faith.    

38. I have found that the applicant’s goodwill and reputation to be modest in nature and despite both parties being based in adjacent parts of the UK with the applicant in Wakefield, Yorkshire and the primary respondent in Sunderland in the Northeast, it is not obvious to me that the primary respondent would have been aware of the applicant and its business. The applicant’s allegation is supported by evidence of its activities, including promotional activities such as featuring in business publications. This shows that the applicant is an established company that has been successfully trading for nearly seven years prior to the incorporation of the primary respondent. However, the business is small in scale (only recently expanding from two to four staff) and I consider it would be wrong to conclude that the applicant’s activities were of such a magnitude that the primary respondent, being based in a different city a reasonable distance away from Wakefield, would have been aware of it.     

39. It is likely that if the primary respondent had undertaken the necessary clearance searches for business names and trade marks that it would have encountered the applicant’s name and trade marks. However, I do not consider that a failure to undertake clearance searches is a sufficient reason to find that the primary respondent was not acting in good faith.      

40. Finally, the applicant draws attention to the primary respondent’s filing of a trade mark application for its company name within days of receiving a letter from the applicant informing the primary respondent of the existence of its trade marks and requesting that the primary respondent change its name so as not to contain the word “Ultra”.[footnote 29] The applicant claims that such an action demonstrates dishonest intent by the primary respondent. I reject such a claim. In circumstances where the primary respondent believed it was entitled to use its name, to file its trade mark application would amount to no more than an attempt to protect, what it believed to be, its legitimately obtained and used name. Therefore, the act of filing the trade mark can be perceived as evidence of good faith intentions as much as for bad faith intentions. Consequently, it does not advance the applicant’s position in respect its claim of bad faith behaviour.   

41. In conclusion, I reject the applicant’s claim that the primary respondent’s name was incorporated in bad faith. The evidence that is before me does not support such a finding. The primary respondent’s claim that it was acting in good faith is accepted.

42. As a consequence of this, the primary respondent has a successful defence to the applicant’s case. Notwithstanding this, I will briefly consider the primary respondent’s second defence that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected.

The interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent

43. The primary respondent states that it “operates within a specific niche, primarily catering for small businesses, CIS contractors, and sole traders within the construction industry” as opposed to the applicant whose target market is established businesses with higher sales income and specific software requirements. Further, it states that its services, clientele and branding are sufficiently differentiated to avoid any substantial adverse impact on the applicant’s business.

44. I have already found the primary respondent’s name to be sufficiently similar to the applicant’s name. It is also relevant that the word “Tax” present in the primary respondent’s name is a descriptive word used in “accountancy”, a term that appears in place of the word “Tax” in the applicant’s name. For the same reasons that the names are sufficiently similar, there is a prima facie reason why, upon encountering the primary respondent’s name, a customer or potential customer of the applicant may believe that there is a connection to the applicant and creates a possibility that the applicant’s interests will be affected.

45. The primary respondent points to its provision of predominantly tax-related services. I note this, but as I commented earlier when discussing the relevance of the SIC codes, both parties are accountancy businesses, and it would be a natural extension of their current service provisions if one expanded into the services currently offered by the other. In this respect, the claimed different current services and target customers of the parties is an insufficient reason to conclude that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected. They are both accountancy businesses that are identified by the names that include, as their distinctive part, the word “Ultra”. Consequently, customers and potential customers, upon encountering the primary respondent are likely to believe that it is the same or related entity to the primary respondent. As a result, there remains a real risk that the applicant’s interests are adversely affected by drawing business away from it. Consequently, this defence fails.

Outcome

46. The primary respondent has been successful when relying upon its defence that its name was adopted in good faith with no intention of capitalising on the applicant’s reputation or misleading consumers. Consequently, the application fails.

Costs

47. For parties with legal representation, the adjudicator will usually follow the scale set out in section 10.1 of the Company Names Tribunal practice direction (“the practice direction”). This is intended to provide a contribution to costs, but not to recompense the successful party.   It is the primary respondent who has been successful in these proceedings and is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I keep in mind that it has been unrepresented throughout the proceedings

48. The award costs in favour of the primary respondent, as follows:  

Considering the Form CNA1 and filing the Form CNA2       £400

Fee for filing the Form CNA2                                                   £150

Filing evidence and considering the other side’s evidence         £300

CNA3 fee                                                                                 £150

Preparing and filing written submissions                                  £200

Total                                                                                        £1200

49. Ultra Accountancy Limited is ordered to pay Ultra Tax Ltd  the sum of £1200.  This sum is to be paid within twenty-one days of the expiry of the period allowed for appeal or, if there is an appeal, within twenty-one days of the conclusion of the appeal proceedings (subject to any order of the appellate court).

Appeal

50. Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to uphold the application; there is no right of appeal in relation to costs. Any notice of appeal must be given within one month of the date of this decision.  Appeal is to the High Court in England Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.  The Tribunal must be advised if an appeal is lodged.

Dated   21st August 2025

Mark Bryant                                                                                                

Company Names Adjudicator                 

  1. Botanica Agriculture and Extraction Limited v. Botanica Limited [2022] EWHC 2957 (Ch) at [13] – [15] ↩

  2. Mr Hargreaves witness statement (hereafter “WS1”) at [3] and Exhibit MH2 ↩

  3. WS1 at [2] ↩

  4. WS1 at [3] ↩

  5. WS1 at [4] and Exhibit MH3 ↩

  6. WS at [5] and Exhibit MH4 ↩

  7. WS1 at [8] and Exhibit MH6 ↩

  8. WS1 at 10 and Exhibit MH7 ↩

  9. WS1 at [14] ↩

  10. WS1 at [15] and Exhibit MH10 ↩

  11. WS1 at [30] and Exhibit MH19 ↩

  12. WS1 at [16] and Exhibit MH11 ↩

  13. WS1 at [17] ↩

  14. WS1 at [44] ↩

  15. WS1 at [38] – [43] and Exhibits MH23 – MH27 ↩

  16. WS1 at [18] and Exhibit MH12 ↩

  17. WS1 at [21] ↩

  18. WS1 at 23] and Exhibit MH14 ↩

  19. WS1 at [24] and [25] ↩

  20. WS1 at [26] – [29] and Exhibits MH16 - MH18 ↩

  21. Specific events, webinars and podcasts are referenced in WS1 at {32] – [37] and Exhibits MH20 – MH22 ↩

  22. Ms Drewett’s witness statement (hereafter “WS2”) ↩

  23. Exhibit MH13 ↩

  24. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Ultra, adj., 3. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved July 9, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9751591608 ↩

  25. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Tax, n.¹. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved July 9, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9819249860 ↩

  26. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Accountancy, n. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved July 9, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1824852105 ↩

  27. Exhibit MH31 ↩

  28. WS1 at [53] and Exhibit MH32 ↩

  29. A copy of the letter is provided at Exhibit MH29 ↩

Back to top