Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:07 am

Title: Miss
First Name: Sarah
Surname: Lewis
Marital status: Single

Miss Sarah Lewis is a sole trader who has no registered business name and no other surname different from Lewis. Is there any law that permits Miss Lewis to add another identifier in front of "Sarah Lewis" (such as "Sarah Lewis X") so that no offence is committed given the construction of Section 1192 of the Company Act 2006?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:12 am

You appear to have got the wrong end of the stick. S1192 is the first in a group of sections concerning restricted or prohibited names. So you look first of all at the restrictions in ss 1193 to 1198. If any of those applies, then the exemption in s1192 may be available.

Sarah Lewis does not appear to be a name that offends against any of those sections.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19543
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby dls » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:17 am

And nor would her adding any other name at to any part of her own name provided:
The name does not include a restricted term
and The name does not infringe any trade mark, or be likely to cause confusion with another trader.

I am permitted to trade as swarblaw.co.uk
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12136
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:40 pm

The relevant extracts of s1192:

(2)The provisions of this Chapter do not prevent—

(a) an individual carrying on business under a name consisting of his surname without any addition other than a permitted addition
...

(3) The following are the permitted additions—

(a) in the case of an individual, his forename or initial;
...

Explanaory notes:

1523.As in the Business Names Act, the restrictions do not apply to individuals if they trade either alone or in partnership under their surnames augmented only by their forenames and/or initials. Sole traders and individuals carrying on business in partnership are also excluded from the scope of the Chapter if the only addition to their name shows the business’s previous ownership
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:49 pm

The bits you have not highlit are the relevant ones.

Suppose your name was Bob Royal. Later sections prohibit the use of "Royal" in a business name. Section 1192 provides that you would not be prevented from trading under your own name.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:04 pm

Perhaps the OP could state his problem. Is it a student question?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19543
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:17 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:The bits you have not highlit are the relevant ones.

Suppose your name was Bob Royal. Later sections prohibit the use of "Royal" in a business name. Section 1192 provides that you would not be prevented from trading under your own name.

The law did not prohibit you to use Bob Royal as long your name is Bob Royal. Even if your real name is "Bob Court" or "Bob UK" or "Bob Anything" as long it is your real name you are permitted.

However to use "Bob Royal X" where X is an addition to your real name is that not an offence given the construction of the legislature? If not an offence is there any case law where this has been determined for a non registered individual to carry on doing official business with addition (such as X in "Bob Royal X") to his or her real name as a natural person?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:22 pm

if you are so worried, advise Bob (or Sarah) to drop the X.

But you have still got the wrong end of the stick, and that rarely makes for good advice.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19543
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:30 pm

dls wrote:And nor would her adding any other name at to any part of her own name provided:
The name does not include a restricted term
and The name does not infringe any trade mark, or be likely to cause confusion with another trader.

I am permitted to trade as swarblaw.co.uk

A trading name (which is not incorporated or formally registered) is not normally regarded in law as a legal entity. Won't it be an offence for you to use swarblaw.co.uk as a legal entity or better still to use swarblaw.co.uk to stand alone as a party to an agreement?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:34 pm

That question misses the difference between legal entity and trading name.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19543
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Company Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest