header-logo header-logo

Agent payouts

06 September 2007 / Beverley Flynn , Navdeep Gill
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The legal protection offered to commercial agents continues to be contentious, say Beverley Flynn and Navdeep Gill

Commercial agents have received legal protection since the mid 1990s by virtue of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3053) (the regulations). In general terms, the regulations apply to any self employed agent who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of a principal. The regulations do not apply to unpaid agents or those whose activities are considered to be secondary.
One of the most contentious aspects of the regulations has been the right of commercial agents to claim compensation in certain circumstances upon termination of the relationship.

There have been two recent cases which have dealt with different aspects of the regulations. The first, Crane v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and another [2007] EWHC 66 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), looked at the application of the secondary test and whether an agent’s activities fell outside of the regulations as a result of those activities being secondary.

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll