O-208-18

COMPANIES ACT 2006
Application No. 1340 by Axa
For an order requiring a change to the name of AXA ENGINEERING LTD, a company incorporated in England and Wales under No. 10471576
Background, Claims and Defences 

1. Axa is a French financial company claiming to have a reputation in the UK in relation to insurance, finance, wealth and asset management. It has a UK subsidiary called AXA UK Plc. 
2. The respondent’s name is AXA ENGINEERING LTD. The company was incorporated on 9^th November 2016. The company’s main activities are recorded as being Trade of electricity, Development of building projects, Construction of engineering projects and Other engineering activities. The sole recorded Director is Mr Ali Hashem.
3. On 15^th December 2016 Axa applied under section 69 of the Companies Act 2006 for an Order under s.73 of the Act that the respondent’s name be changed to a non-offending name. The applicant claims that:
(i)	It has the necessary goodwill and reputation in the UK in the name AXA to bring a claim under s.69 of the Act;
(ii)	The respondent’s name is “sufficiently similar to [AXA] that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant;”
(ii) 	The respondent’s name was chosen in order to take advantage of the applicant’s reputation.
4. The respondent denies this and says that the AXA part of its name was chosen from the initials of the founder (Mr Ali Hashem) and his wife (Ms Alaa Awaa) to represent ‘A & A’. 
5. The respondent denies that the applicant’s name is sufficiently similar to the applicant’s trading name as to be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.  It also puts forward two specific defences; (i) that the respondent’s company name was adopted in good faith; and (ii) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent. In support of these points it claims that (a) it was not aware of the applicant when the offending company name was incorporated, and (b) the distance between the fields of insurance and engineering is far enough to avoid any significant effect on the applicant.
Representation
6. The applicant is represented by Keltie LLP. The respondent is represented by Carl Martin, Solicitors in Ilford. A hearing took place on 21^st March 2018. Mr Benet Brandreth QC appeared as counsel for the applicant. The respondent was represented by Mr Okey Ngwuocha of Carl Martin. 
The evidence
The respondent’s evidence-in-chief
7. The respondent’s evidence-in chief takes the form of a short witness statement dated 3^rd April 2017 by Mr Ali Hashem. He says that he did not know of the applicant prior to the incorporation of the respondent company. Mr Hashem is a graduate engineer. He says that AXA was chosen to represent his own and his wife’s first initials (‘A’). He used the central letter ‘X’ because it was the closest letter to the symbol ‘&’. The name of the respondent was therefore chosen to indicate that the engineering company belonged to him and his spouse. The nature of the company was reflected in the company name, i.e. ‘Axa Engineering’. 
8. In support of his claims Mr Hashem exhibits:
(i) Copies of letters from VRM Swansea recording that he bought two personalised number plates on 7^th November 2016 (2 days prior to the date of incorporation of the respondent) for LA10AXA and AL15AXA. 

See exhibits AH1 & 2

(ii) A copy of a letter from Lloyds Bank dated 26^th November 2016 (11 days after the date of incorporation of the respondent) showing that he opened a bank account for the respondent company.
9. The copies of letters from VRM Swansea are annotated by hand to indicate that LA10AXA was chosen because LA10 is similar to Mr Hashem’s spouse’s nickname (Lalo) and AXA, and AL15AXA was chosen because AL15 is similar to Mr Hashem’s first name (Ali’s) and AXA.  
The applicant’s evidence
10. The applicant’s evidence comes partly from its Chief Marketing Officer, Mr Darrell Sansom. Mr Sansom’s evidence goes to AXA’s reputation, which is for financial services, mainly insurance. The name AXA has been used globally since 1985, including in the UK. The applicant employs 10k people in the UK and has 10m customers here. It is one of the biggest insurers in the UK providing personal and commercial insurance and controlling nearly £2.5 billion in premiums. An article published in The Sunday Times on 21^st May 2017 described Axa as an “insurance giant”. In 2016, Interbrand, a brand strategy and design consultancy, ranked AXA 1^st amongst global insurance brands for the eighth year running as well as being one of the top three financial services brands. In support of the applicant’s claim that AXA has a substantial reputation in the UK, Mr Sansom points out that all the hits on the first 10 pages from the results of a search for AXA conducted on Google (in July 2017) related to the applicant. 

See page 23 of exhibit 4 to Mr Sansom’s statement

See exhibit 8 to Mr Sansom’s statement

See exhibit 5 to Mr Sansom’s statement

11. The AXA trade mark is generally used in a logo form, which looks like this. 
12. The AXA name was also used in combination with (mostly) descriptive secondary elements prior to the relevant date. For example, AXA PPP Healthcare, AXA Insurance, AXA Wealth, and AXA Self Investor. 

See, for example, page 12 of exhibit 3 to Mr Sansom’s statement.

13. The applicant advertised business insurance on its axa.co.uk website prior to the relevant date. And by no later than 20^th July 2017 (i.e. 8 months after the date of incorporation of the respondent) the applicant’s UK website provided details of more specific business insurance options, including Real Estate, Motor Fleet and Engineering Cover. The latter offered insurance against deterioration of stock, machinery movement and sudden and unforeseen damage to machinery. 

See page 15 of exhibit 3 to Mr Sansom’s statement.

See page 17 of exhibit 1 to Mr Sansom’s statement.

14. The applicant’s evidence also includes a witness statement from Rosemary Cardas of Keltie LLP dated 4^th August 2017. As well as public record information about the parties, Ms Cardas provides (a) the results of a search of ‘A & A’ on the Companies House website which appears to show that only companies beginning with ‘A & B’ are registered, (b) a screenshot from the jobs website glassdoor.co.uk advertising an “AXA Engineering” internship with AXA in Paris, (c) a personal profile of an employee of AXA downloaded from the English language version of AXA’s axa.com website, which shows that the applicant had established an AXA Engineering Lab consisting of “a versatile team of engineers [which] constantly tests today’s and tomorrow’s innovations to guide AXA toward a successful digital transformation”, and (d) a reference to the AXA Engineering Lab in a press alert from Viva Technology. This appears to be a French business. All of the above are dated in 2017, i.e. after the date of incorporation of the respondent. 

See exhibit RAC 5 to Ms Cardas’s statement

See exhibit RAC 7

15. Mr Sansom’s evidence provides no assistance as to the public standing or function of the AXA Engineering Lab. From what we can glean from the papers it appears to be an internal organ of AXA located in Paris and is engaged in software engineering (hence digital transformation) within AXA’s business. There is nothing to indicate that it played any significant part in the applicant’s reputation in the UK at the date of incorporation of the respondent (or at all).
16. The applicant also filed written submissions dated 4^th August 2017 from Keltie LLP. These submissions, inter alia, pointed out that:
	(i) No evidence had been filed that the respondent was trading;
(ii) No explanation has been provided as to why the name A & A Engineering was not adopted instead of AXA Engineering;
(iii) Ms Cardas’s evidence indicates that A & A Engineering was available as a company name.
The respondent’s evidence-in-reply
17. This consist of a witness statement dated 22^nd October 2017 by Mr Okey Ngwuocha, Mr Hashem’s solicitor. Most of his statement is comprised of submissions, not evidence. However, we note that Mr Ngwuocha exhibits an email from Mr Hashem dated 16^th August 2017. In his email Mr Hashem says the letter ‘X’ in AXA ENGINEERING means ‘&’ and also “love and exchange” (as between Mr Hashem and his partner). Additionally, he exhibits the result of a search conducted on the Companies House website (in August 2017) which shows that A&A Engineering (UK) Ltd was incorporated (by a third party) in 2011. According to the search results, Companies House would consider this name to be the ‘same as’ A&A Engineering for the purposes of company law.  
Preliminary issue at the hearing
18. On the morning of the hearing, Mr Ngwuocha provided a skeleton argument. Attached to that skeleton were the results of some recent searches of the Register of Companies. These showed a number of registered companies with names including AXA. Mr Ngwuocha sought to rely on this material in order to rebut the applicant’s case. 
19. Mr Brandreth objected to the admissibility of this material on the grounds that (a) it should have been filed during the written stage of the procedure, and (b) it had been filed so late as to deny the applicant from having a proper opportunity to evaluate it. To illustrate the latter point, Mr Brandreth advised that some initial hasty analysis of the material indicated that at least three of the five registered companies cited in Mr Ngwuocha’s skeleton appeared to be part of the applicant’s group of companies. 
20. If we entertained giving any weight to the results of the company name searches we would have had to have given the applicant time to properly investigate the search results and make submissions on them. This would have added to the applicant’s costs and potentially required the hearing to be adjourned, or a further hearing convened. This would have delayed the process, which is, of itself, a form of prejudice to the applicant. Mr Ngwuocha reminded us of our duty as a tribunal to take into account all the facts available to it. We accept the general proposition. However, the tribunal also has a duty to act fairly to both parties. The respondent was given two opportunities to file written evidence and submissions. It therefore had ample opportunity to file the written material it sought to rely upon at the hearing during the written stage of the procedure. That would have afforded the applicant with suitable opportunities to deal with it. Having failed to file the material at the appropriate times, and without even observing the rule that skeletons must be served 2 days prior to the hearing, there would have had to have been a very good reason to permit the respondent to rely on the new material at the hearing. 
21. In our view, there was no good reason. At most, the material showed there were other companies on the register with names including AXA. However, even if some of these are not related to the applicant, the material provided did not show that any of these company names were in use as trading names, or at all. Consequently, the material in question could not undermine the applicant’s claim to have goodwill and reputation under the name AXA, or that AXA was distinctive of its business in the UK. Consequently, the results of the company name searches appear to be irrelevant. We therefore attach no weight to them. 
The relevant law
22. 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 would be likely to mislead 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 its members may be joined as respondents. 
(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) that the company— 
(i) is operating under the name, or
(ii) is proposing to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation, or 
(iii) was formerly operating under the name and is now dormant; or
(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.”

The applicant’s goodwill and reputation
23. At the hearing the respondent accepted that the applicant had established that it had a reputation under the logo shown at paragraph 11 above in relation to insurance.
24. The applicant claims to have a very substantial reputation in the UK under the name AXA in relation to insurance, finance, wealth and asset management. In this connection, the applicant points to the length and scale of its business in the UK and the recognition and high ranking of the brand by third parties, such as Interbrand. 
25. We find that AXA has a substantial reputation and goodwill in the UK. This is mainly as an insurance business, but also extends to some other financial services, such as wealth and asset management. It is true that the name is usually used in the logo form shown at paragraph 11 above. However, the letters AXA are clearly visible in that logo. AXA is how customers would vocalise the brand. The name AXA is also used in word form on the applicant’s website. And others use the name to identify the applicant without having to use the logo form. For example, The Sunday Times described “Axa” as an insurance giant. Admittedly this was in 2017, but given the length of the applicant’s business in the UK there is no reason to doubt that the meaning of AXA would have been any different at the relevant date of incorporation of the respondent.
Similarity of names
26. We remind ourselves that the test is whether the respondent’s name is:
“…sufficiently similar to [a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill]…. that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.”
The onus is on the applicant to establish that this condition is met. The relevant date for this purpose is the date of incorporation of the respondent (9^th November 2016).
27. The applicant says (a) AXA is distinctive of its business, (b) the word “Engineering” in the respondent’s name is merely descriptive, (c) that it uses AXA names with a similar construction to the respondent’s name, such as AXA PPP Healthcare, AXA Insurance, AXA Wealth, and AXA Self Investor, (d) it provides insurance for engineering businesses, and (e) there is public knowledge in the UK of its AXA Engineering Lab.
28. At the hearing, Mr Brandreth appeared to elevate the applicant’s case under point (c) in the preceding paragraph to one based on the applicant’s use of a ‘family’ of AXA trading names. By analogy with the law of trade marks, he accepted that this required the applicant show that a ‘family’ of AXA trading names was present on the market at the relevant date. We note that the applicant pleaded its case on the basis of the goodwill and reputation associated with AXA. No other name was mentioned. Although we do not rule out the possibility of basing a case on the use of a ‘family’ of trading names with a common element, that sort of case must be clearly pleaded. It was not so pleaded. Therefore, although we will take into account the various ways in which the applicant has used AXA in the course of establishing its goodwill and reputation, we do not consider it appropriate to determine this case on the basis of the reputation attached to the applicant’s ‘family’ of trading names. 

See Il Pointe Finanziaria CJEU, Case C-234/06 P

29. The respondent submits that it is an engineering business with no connection with insurance or financial services: the name of its company says as much. Consequently, no one will be misled into believing that it is connected with the applicant.
30. It is implicit in the respondent’s submission that it is appropriate to take into account the nature of the applicant’s business in deciding whether use of the respondent’s name would be likely to mislead. By relying on the extent of its reputation under AXA as a relevant factor the applicant appears to take a similar position. 
31. We agree. The use in s.69(1) of the words “a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill” (emphasis added) indicates that the applicant’s goodwill is to be taken into account in the assessment of whether use of the respondent’s name is likely to mislead. This is consistent with the purpose of s.69 of the Act, which is to prevent the opportunistic registration of company names for commercial gain or other mischief. It is not intended to provide exclusive rights to a company or trading name (as with trade marks). 

This is why it is a defence to show that the company is actually operating under the name (and therefore subject to the laws of trade marks and passing off).

32. By contrast, the nature of the respondent’s business is not usually an important factor in the assessment of whether use of the respondent’s name is likely to mislead. This is because although a company’s main business activities are recorded in the Register of Companies, this does not prevent companies from conducting other activities. However, in this case the nature of the respondent’s business is also indicated in the company name AXA ENGINEERING LTD. This is not a name which lends itself to use in relation to a business without a connection to engineering. It is therefore appropriate to take the indication ‘Engineering’ into account in deciding whether people will be misled by use of the respondent’s name, having regard to the applicant’s reputation for insurance and financial services. It follows that we do not consider that the descriptive nature of the word ‘Engineering’ means that its inclusion in the respondent’s name can have no bearing on the likelihood that use of the name will mislead the public. 
33. In our view, the respondent’s denial of the applicant’s primary case depends heavily on the distinguishing effect of the word ‘Engineering’. This is because AXA is not a recognised word and there is no evidence that it is used by multiple parties. In other words, it seems quite a distinctive trading name. Therefore, unless ‘Engineering’ is strong enough to neutralise the effect of the use of AXA as the first word in the respondent’s name, there is good reason to believe that the use of the respondent’s name will mislead people into believing that it is connected with the applicant. 
34. We find that the applicant’s use of AXA ‘Engineering Lab’ has no material bearing on the likelihood of the respondent’s name misleading people. This is because (a) the Engineering Lab is an internal organ within the applicant’s business, apparently based in France, and (b) there is no convincing evidence that any significant number of the UK public would have any knowledge of it at the relevant date.
35. We have already noted that the respondent’s intention to trade in the engineering field is not decisive because it is not restricted to trading in this field (or from selling the company to someone who trades in a different field). We also consider it relevant that the applicant provides insurance for businesses and that it has offered to provide ‘Engineering Cover’ for engineering businesses. It is true that this offer was made after the relevant date. However, there is no suggestion that it was fabricated for the purpose of these proceedings. On the face of it, it looks like a genuine commercial offering. It is also consistent with other evidence that the applicant offered insurance specifically for businesses prior to the relevant date. We therefore accept that ‘Engineering Cover’ may be used to designate insurance specifically for engineering firms and we are prepared to infer that this would also have been the position at the relevant date. It follows that users of business insurance would not find the combination of ‘AXA’ and ‘Engineering Cover’ to be incongruous or contradictory. This conclusion much reduces the power of the word ‘Engineering’ in the respondent’s name to counter the impression of a connection with the AXA insurance company. 
36. Having decided that (a) the respondent’s business is not restricted to its recorded main activities, and (b) ‘Engineering’ could also describe a category of insurance cover, we find that the respondent’s name is similar enough to the applicant’s name so as to be likely to mislead people into believing that there is a connection with the applicant. 
37. The applicant is therefore successful in establishing a prima facie case under s.69(1)(b) of the Act. We now turn to the respondent’s pleaded defences. 
The respondent’s defences
38. The onus is on the respondent to establish that one or more of the defences apply.
39. Although the respondent’s pleaded defences mentioned the respondent’s business, there was no specific claim that the respondent was operating under its name. Mr Ngwuocha told us at the hearing that the respondent had been trading for over a year. However, as we pointed out to him, this fact was not mentioned in Mr Hashem’s evidence or his own evidence in reply. This is despite the fact that the applicant specifically pointed to the absence of such evidence in its written response to Mr Hashem’s statement. The best that Mr Ngwuocha could do was to point to Mr Hashem’s evidence that he had opened a bank account in the respondent’s name shortly after its incorporation. However, merely opening a bank account does not show that the company was operating under the name. Therefore, if the purpose of claiming that the respondent is trading was to establish a defence under s.69(4)(b) of the Act, we reject it on the grounds that (a) it was not pleaded, and (b) the relevant facts are not proven.
40. We have given careful consideration to the respondent’s defence that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent. We recognise that the distance between the applicant’s goodwill in an insurance business and the respondent’s planned (maybe actual) engineering business means that the defence has some merit. However, in the end we have decided that the pleaded defence under s. 69(4)(e) of the Act must be rejected. This is because (a) even if the respondent is intending to trade, or currently trading in, the field of engineering, there is nothing to prevent it from changing or expanding its business in future (or selling it to someone who will), and (b) the names of the parties are similar to such a degree that we are not satisfied that use of the respondent’s name could not adversely affect the applicant to any significant extent.
41. This brings us to the respondent’s other pleaded defence, which is that the respondent’s name was adopted in good faith. Mr Brandreth relied on Adnan Shaaban Abou-Rahmah and others v Al-Haji Abdul Kadir Abacha and others as support for the proposition that the absence of good faith is “a broad concept capable of embracing a failure to act in a commercially acceptable way and sharp practice which falls short of outright dishonesty as well as dishonesty itself.” We accept this submission, subject to the warning contained in the judgment cited by Mr Brandreth that what counts as good faith “will have to be worked out through the cases.” 

[2006] EWCA Civ 1492

42. Mr Brandreth also relied on the judgment of Arnold J. in London Taxi v Fraser Research. The judge confirmed that the list of relevant factors for determining whether a defendant had acted in accordance with honest practices for the purposes of s.11 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 included (a) whether the defendant knew of the trade mark when it commenced infringing use, and (b) whether it would have been reasonable for it to have conducted a trade mark search. The judge decided that the defendant did not know of the trade marks at issue and, on the facts of the case, it was reasonable for the defendant not to have conducted a trade mark search. 

[2016] EWHC 52

43. We note that on appeal, the Court of Appeal stated that, if it had been necessary, it would have reversed the trial judge’s findings on this point. However, that was because, if the defence was needed, it was because there was a likelihood of confusion and detriment to the infringed mark, which ought not to be tolerated given that there were ways of avoiding that result. 
44. In the London Taxi case both parties were trading in the same goods (taxis). In company name cases the goods/services traded under the respondent’s name (if any) are not defined in the way that they are under trade mark law. Consequently, it is not possible to search the Company Register in the same way as the Trade Mark Register in order to see if a particular name is already registered for particular goods/services. We do not therefore accept that it is appropriate to import the reasonableness of searching as an important relevant factor in the evaluation of good faith in company name cases. That is not to say that the tribunal will never take account of behaviour which amounts to closing one’s eyes to the obvious. Whether that is the case depends on the facts. In this case, there is no evidence that a search of the Trade Mark Register would have revealed that AXA was registered as a trade mark for any goods/services overtly connected to engineering. We do not therefore regard the absence of searches in this case as an important factor in the required assessment of good faith.  
45. Mr Brandreth also relied on the extent of the applicant’s reputation with the public. It has 10 million UK customers. He said that Mr Hashem (who incorporated the respondent) must have, or should have, known about the applicant. Mr Hashem’s evidence is that he did not know of the applicant when he adopted the respondent’s name. He has not been cross examined on that evidence. Further, although the applicant’s response to his evidence took issue with his explanation of how the respondent’s name was chosen, it did not directly dispute his evidence that he did not know of the applicant when choosing it. We regard the applicant’s failure to directly challenge the truth of Mr Hashem’s evidence on this point (prior to making submissions at the hearing) as a relevant factor, although not a decisive one. 
46. For his part, Mr Ngwuocha pointed out that insurance is often sold through brokers. Accordingly, he submitted that it could not even be assumed that the applicant’s 10 million UK customers necessarily knew of it. We see some limited force in this point. 
47. Turning to the explanation provided for Mr Hashem’s choice of AXA as part of the respondent’s  name, Mr Brandreth submitted that it was implausible because (a) Mr Hashem’s partner was not an officer of the respondent company, so there was no need to find a name which referenced her as well as him, (b) there was no obvious reason to use the initials of their first names rather than their surnames, (c) the explanation for using the letter X was odd and had changed, and (d) the company name A & A Engineering was available. 
48. We see nothing odd or implausible about points (a) and (b) in the preceding paragraph. The fact that it was Mr Hashem’s business does not contradict his evidence that he wished to reference his partner in the name of his new venture. As the reference was personal, the use of initials from first names is not surprising. As to point (d) above, we note the evidence that A&A Engineering (UK) Ltd was incorporated (by a third party) in 2011. It is not therefore clear that A & A Engineering was available at the time the respondent’s name was adopted.
49. We accept that using a letter X as a proxy for the ‘&’ symbol is not an obvious choice. However, we do not regard this explanation as contradicting the later claim that the letter ‘X’ was also meant as a sign of the affection between Mr Hashem and his partner. This is consistent with Mr Hashem’s evidence that shortly before the respondent’s name was adopted, he purchased vehicle number plates for himself and his partner including the letters AXA.
50. In different circumstances we may have had more trouble in accepting Mr Hashem’s explanation for choosing a company name including AXA. However, his evidence is further supported, in our view, by the fact that the full name he chose was AXA ENGINEERING. Although, we have found that ‘Engineering’ could be used to describe a category of insurance cover, this is unlikely to be evident to the general public. It also seems unlikely that Mr Hashem would have had this in mind. Although he is a graduate engineer, at the time he adopted the respondent’s name he did not have an engineering business to insure. We therefore accept the respondent’s evidence that the name was adopted in good faith for the reasons given by Mr Hashem. Consequently, the defence in s.69(4)(d) of the Act applies.
51. This means that we must reject the applicant’s application for an Order changing the name.
Costs  
52. The application having failed, the respondent is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. Having regard to the published scale of costs we would ordinarily have awarded the respondent £2300, as follows.
	£350 for considering the application and filing a notice of defence;
	£150 official filing fee for Form CNA2;
	£750 for preparing evidence and considering the applicant’s evidence;
	£300 official filing fees for 2 x Forms CNA3
	£750 for attending a hearing and filing a skeleton argument.
 53. However, Mr Brandeth asked us to take account of the following:
	(i) The respondent’s failure to meet deadlines;
	(ii) The late filing of the respondent’s skeleton argument;
	(iii) The respondent’s late arrival for the hearing.
Mr Brandreth submitted that this behaviour had wasted costs, including the half hour delay to the start of the hearing.
54. We have looked at the file. There is nothing to indicate that the respondent was late filing its evidence. However, we note that the respondent repeatedly failed to copy its evidence to the applicant. This meant that the applicant had to chase for it. This led to delays and no doubt additional costs for the applicant. The respondent’s skeleton argument was very late as described above. This meant that the applicant had to undertake additional last minute research on the morning of the hearing. The respondent’s late arrival and the delay it caused to the start of the hearing added further unnecessary costs for the applicant. We have taken account of these factors and decided to make a suitable reduction in the costs awarded to the respondent. We believe that a cost reduction of £600 is appropriate. 
55. We therefore order Axa to pay AXA ENGINEERING LTD the sum of £1700. This sum to be paid within 14 days of the period allowed for appeal or, if there is an appeal, within 14 days of the conclusion of the appeal proceedings (subject to any order of the appellant tribunal).
Postscript
56. Shortly before this decision was about to be issued we became aware that the applicant had made an application to filed additional evidence. This was long after the written stage of the procedure had closed and a week after the matter had been heard. There would have had to be an extremely good reason for the tribunal to admit additional evidence in these circumstances. No explanation was provided for the extreme lateness of the evidence. We will therefore continue with the decision we made on the basis of the evidence available at the hearing. We have not looked at the additional evidence or taken any account of it. 
Dated this 29th day of March 2018

Allan James Judi Pike Oliver Morris
Company Name Adjudicators