(1)The registrar shall remove from the register any material—
(a)that derives from anything that the court has declared to be invalid or ineffective, or to have been done without the authority of the company, or
(b)that a court declares to be factually inaccurate, or to be derived from something that is factually inaccurate, or forged,
and that the court directs should be removed from the register.
(2)The court order must specify what is to be removed from the register and indicate where on the register it is.
(3)The court may make an order for the removal from the register of anything the registration of which had legal consequences only if satisfied that the interest of the company, or (if different) the applicant, in removing the material outweighs any interest of other persons in the material continuing to appear on the register.
(4)Where in such a case the court does make an order for removal, it may make such consequential orders as appear just with respect to the legal effect (if any) to be accorded to the material by virtue of its having appeared on the register.
(5)A copy of the court's order must be sent to the registrar for registration.
(5A)This section does not apply to any material delivered to the registrar under Part 15.
(6)This section does not apply where the court has other, specific, powers to deal with the matter, for example under—
(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)section 859M (rectification of register) .
Cases considering section 1096 (19)
[2026] EWHC 1058 (Ch) · 6 May 2026
Applies the statutory rectification jurisdiction to remove unauthorised Companies House filings and correct the electronic registers. The claimant sought relief under this provision in relation to YHMS and SSL. (see para [10])
[2025] EWHC 2938 (Ch) · 19 November 2025Limits
The court declined to order removal of filings concerning the purported new directors because the declarations made those filings nullities and the Registrar would implement the declarations. It also declined to remove historical Freeholder Director filings ab initio, although declarations were made that those individuals were no longer directors (see paras [104]-[107]).
[2025] EWHC 1272 (Ch) · 4 June 2025Interprets
The court applied the statutory power to remove material derived from something invalid, ineffective, unauthorised, factually inaccurate or forged. The impugned filings were unauthorised because the first defendant lacked authority under the company’s articles or the Act (see paras [20], [33]–[35]).
The court interpreted the requirement that registration itself must have legal consequences before the interests-balancing test applies. Director notices, person-with-significant-control filings, accounts and confirmation statements did not satisfy that requirement, whereas a registered-office change did; the latter was removed after balancing the competing interests (see paras [21], [36]–[41]).
What each judgment says about section 1096 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
1405.The registrar is also required to remove material from the register where there is a court order to that effect. The court’s rectification power operates in the same circumstances as the registrar’s power following regulations made under section 1094. However, the court’s power is of general application. For example, there is no limit on the types of document covered. The court may make an order to remove material from the register where its presence on the register has caused damage or may cause damage to the company and the company’s interests in removing the material outweigh the interests of others in it continuing to be on the register. The court may make such consequential orders as appear just regarding the period that the information was on the register and the effect of the information being on the register during that period. The court’s rectification power does not operate where the court has other rectification powers (e.g. in relation to accounts or charges).