header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 September 2022 / Emily Sadler , Louis Iveson
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

After the ‘Drain Doctor’—restrictive covenants in franchising

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll