The Adjudicator has discretion to extend any time limit under Rule 7, including that for filing a counterstatement, but there is no discretion to waive the requirement for a counterstatement (which must be filed on a form CNA2). The purpose of the CMC is to determine whether the proceedings should continue it is not a determination on the merits of the applicant’s claim. The letter included the following (original emphasis): On 25 April 2022, the tribunal wrote to the parties expressing its view that the primary respondent had exercised its right to a hearing and appointed a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for Friday to discuss the primary respondent’s failure to file a form CNA2. No reasons were given for the failure to file the form CNA2, either on the form CNA4 or in the letter accompanying the CNA4, which was addressed to the applicant’s representatives. On 30 March 2022, the primary respondent filed a form CNA4. The tribunal also wrote to Messrs Fabb and Taft on 18 March 2022, confirming that they had been joined as co-respondents and that this decision could likewise be disputed by filing a form CNA4 and fee by 1 April 2022. The primary respondent was also advised that either party had the right to be heard in accordance with rule 5(3) and that a hearing could be requested by the filing of a form CNA4 (“Request for a hearing to be appointed”), with the accompanying fee of £100, on or before 1 April 2022. Accordingly, on 18 March 2022, the tribunal wrote to the primary respondent advising it that,Īs no CNA 2 has 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. Neither the primary respondent nor the co-respondents responded to the tribunal’s letters. They were allowed until 4 March 2022 to comment upon that request. On the same date, the tribunal wrote to Messrs Fabb and Taft to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings as co-respondents. A decision in favour of the applicant will normally include an award of costs in favour of the applicant, provided costs have been requested by the applicant. If you decide not to defend your company name, the application will normally succeed. If you choose not to file a form CNA 2 and the £150 fee the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006. I note that the letter contained the following (original emphasis): The primary respondent was allowed until 4 March 2022 to file a defence on Form CNA2 accompanied by the official fee of £150. The applicant is represented by Addleshaw Goddard LLP.Ī copy of the application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 4 February 2022, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 (“the Rules”). 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”). The Companies House website lists two directors, namely David Lawrence Fabb and Greg Taft.īy an application filed on 17 December 2021, Close Invoice Finance Limited (“the applicant”) applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of s. The company name CLOSE BROS INVOICE FINANCE LIMITED has been registered since 12 April 2021 under number 13328837 (“the primary respondent”). For a change of company name of registration
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |