Thanks for the response. It will take significantly longer for me to redact personal info and for me to upload/you to read claim/my response/court orders/claimant court application/my court application/etc I was asking one simple question, it's in the title and here I have now got assistance/resolved this elsewhere, the answer is that a trading name alone is not sufficient. For anyone else who may come across this thread: The Civil Procedure Rules, Part 16 para 2.4(2)/2.4(4) detail that sole traders and limited companies need to declare their full name/registered company name as well as their trading name.

We signed a contract with a builder for significant refurbishment under their company name which subsequently seems to be a trading name but no link/minimum legal requirement to refer to real registered company name (in the name of the builder). (not enough due diligence on our part!) Weren't satisfied with work and delays (35 weeks vs 6 quoted) cost us significant additional stamp duty so we withheld that amount. Got taken to court by the registered company not named on the contract. Judge set it aside a registered company not named in the contract. Builder/claimant changed claim to his "trading name" and judge allowed the claim to proceed again. We objected as and now going to a hearing. The contract, website, all email, all invoices, receipts, registered offices are in the trading name make no mention of the true registered company name. There is no link between the trading name and company name. Am I correct to assume the trading name is not a legal entity/able to raise a court claim? Realise this is a contract technicality but might be the quickest/simplest resolution. Otherwise we are happy to fight the claim for the work/delay Thanks in advance