London Business House Ltd & Anor v Pitman Training Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1077 (Comm) (09 May 2023)

London Business House Ltd & Anor v Pitman Training Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1077 (Comm) (09 May 2023)

The franchise agreement, properly construed, granted the claimants a limited exclusivity to use the Pitman brand in the Nottingham territory, but did not prohibit the defendants from supplying unbranded or 'white label' materials to other providers such as Derby Business College Limited. The evidence did not establish that the defendants breached the agreement by permitting Derby's activities, as Derby's use was predominantly for government-funded courses and did not amount to trading the Pitman brand in competition with the claimants. The alleged pre-contractual representations did not amount to actionable misrepresentation, and in any event, the exclusion clauses in the agreement were...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: London Business House Limited; Claimant: Faisal Rehman; Defendant: Pitman Training Limited; Defendant: Pitman Training Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract and Misrepresentation Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Franchise Exclusivity, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation (fraudulent, Negligent, Innocent), Interpretation of Franchise Agreements, Exclusion Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Remedies for Breach, Admissibility and Weight of Hearsay Evidence
Contract Law Franchise Law Commercial Law Misrepresentation Franchise Exclusivity Breach of Contract Misrepresentation (fraudulent, Negligent, Innocent) Interpretation of Franchise Agreements +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Business House Limited

Claimant

Faisal Rehman

Claimant

Pitman Training Limited

Defendant

Pitman Training Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract and Misrepresentation Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the franchise agreement granted the claimants an exclusive right to operate the Pitman brand in the Nottingham territory
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the agreement by permitting Derby Business College Limited to provide Pitman-branded courses in the territory
  3. 3 Whether pre-contractual representations amounted to actionable misrepresentation (fraudulent, negligent, or innocent)

Ratio Decidendi

The franchise agreement, properly construed, granted the claimants a limited exclusivity to use the Pitman brand in the Nottingham territory, but did not prohibit the defendants from supplying unbranded or 'white label' materials to other providers such as Derby Business College Limited. The evidence did not establish that the defendants breached the agreement by permitting Derby's activities, as Derby's use was predominantly for government-funded courses and did not amount to trading the Pitman brand in competition with the claimants. The alleged pre-contractual representations did not amount to actionable misrepresentation, and in any event, the exclusion clauses in the agreement were...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Application for contempt against Kerry Bentley is dismissed.