header-logo header-logo

02 September 2022 / Emily Sadler , Louis Iveson
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

After the ‘Drain Doctor’—restrictive covenants in franchising

Emily Sadler & Louis Iveson explain why franchisors should review their agreements following a recent judgment
  • Post-termination restrictive covenants in franchising agreements may not be as enforceable as once thought.
  • Practitioners acting for franchise clients (both franchisors and franchisees) should consider the impact of this judgment and how it might change the advice given in light of it.

On 30 June 2022 the Court of Appeal laid down its judgment in Dwyer (UK Franchising) Ltd v Fredbar Ltd and Shaun Bartlett [2022] EWCA Civ 889, [2022] All ER (D) 11 (Jul) in which they dismissed Dwyer’s appeal against an earlier High Court decision which ruled that the post-termination restrictive covenants in its franchise agreement were unenforceable.

This ruling is of crucial importance for franchisors using standard form agreements with its franchisees, but particularly so where the franchisee is an inexperienced individual. The judgment has dismissed the widely-held belief that a 12-month restrictive covenant will generally be enforceable upon a franchisee provided that the restricted activities and geographic area covered were suitably limited. Practitioners should consider advising

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll