Property Links International Ltd v Coffee Republic Retail Ltd

Property Links International Ltd v Coffee Republic Retail Ltd

The Claimant failed to prove the existence of any oral collateral contract or a 12-month fee holiday. The May Written Amendment was genuine and released Mr Christie from his guarantee, but the Claimant was in breach of the MFA by failing to pay royalties and disabling till reporting. The Defendant was entitled to terminate the MFA. The counterclaim for unpaid royalties and trade mark infringement succeeded.

Parties
Claimant: Property Links International Limited; Defendant: Coffee Republic Retail Limited; Third Party: Mark Christie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Franchise Agreements, Guarantees, Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Breach of Contract, Damages, Assignment of Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Intellectual Property Franchise Agreements Guarantees Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Property Links International Limited

Claimant

Coffee Republic Retail Limited

Defendant

Mark Christie

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral collateral contract (OCC) existed modifying the Master Franchise Agreement (MFA)
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was in breach of the MFA at the time of termination
  3. 3 Whether a fee holiday was granted and its duration

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to prove the existence of any oral collateral contract or a 12-month fee holiday. The May Written Amendment was genuine and released Mr Christie from his guarantee, but the Claimant was in breach of the MFA by failing to pay royalties and disabling till reporting. The Defendant was entitled to terminate the MFA. The counterclaim for unpaid royalties and trade mark infringement succeeded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Counterclaim allowed