Decision on Group Monzo Ltd - GOV.UK

* Company Names Tribunal Decision DECISION ON GROUP MONZO LTD Published 19 August 2024 CONTENTS * Order under the Companies Act 2006 * Decision Print this page © Crown copyright 2024 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: [email protected].

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-group-monzo-ltd/decision-on-group-monzo-ltd ORDER UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 In the matter of application No.

4718 For a change of company name of registration No. 15034063 DECISION The company name GROUP MONZO LTD has been registered since 28 July 2023 under number 15034063. By an application filed

on 19 February 2024, MONZO BANK 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 4 March 2024, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was

sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and also by standard mail. On 4 March 2024, the Tribunal wrote to Rajae Hanine to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be

joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Rajae Hanine in relation to this request. On 23 May 2024, Rajae Hanine was joined as a co-respondent. On 23 May 2024, 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. 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) GROUP MONZO LTD shall

change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name; [footnote 1] (b) GROUP MONZO LTD and Rajae Hanine 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. 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. MONZO BANK LIMITED, 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 14 August

2024 Susan Eaves Company Names Adjudicator * 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. ↩ Back to top