Cancellation of ‘Seychelles Airlines’ trading name |09 May 2015

Registrar needs to provide justification

The Seychelles Registrar of Companies needs to provide justification as to why the trading name of a new airline company registered as 'Seychelles Airlines,' was cancelled.

On Thursday when she upheld the appeal of the company's owners against the registrar’s decision on the grounds that it was unlawful, Judge Fiona Robinson gave the Seychelles Registrar of Companies 10 days to provide justification for its decision.

“This Court makes order remitting the case back to the Registrar of Companies to give a determination in conformity with section 17 of the act within ten days of the date of this judgement, failing which the Registrar of Companies shall register the business name Seychelles Airlines in the register,” said Robinson when reading her decision.

The matter relating to the trading name of the new airline was first brought before the court in December 2013, and the dispute had stalled the company's attempts to obtain an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) from the Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority.
Intershore Aviation was contesting demands made by the Seychelles Registrar that the airline’s trading name should be changed to exclude the word ‘Seychelles.’ The company argued that they had already been legally approved and registered by the registrar under the name ‘Seychelles Airlines’ since August 2013.

Section 17 of the Registration of Business Names Act of 1972 makes provision for the registrar to refuse to register any firm, individual or corporation carrying on business under a business name based on a number of reasons.

Intershore Aviation, a company owned by prominent lawyer and politician Phillipe Boullé, brought another case before the court in November 2014 after it was informed that the name Seychelles Airlines had been struck off the Companies Register.

Intershore Aviation then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 17 (6) of the act which states that “any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar under this section may appeal to the Supreme Court, whose decision shall be final.”

When delivering her judgement on Thursday, Judge Robinson noted that while there was no requirement for under the act for the Registrar of Companies to give reasons for the notice to cancel the court was of the view that reasons should have been given to “make the decision-making process transparent.”