QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
BURGER KING |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
KING FRANCHISES |
Defendant |
____________________
165 Fleet Street, 8th Floor, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7421 4046 Fax No: 020 7422 6134
Web: www.merrillcorp.com/mls Email: mlstape@merrillcorp.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS KLAEDES (instructed DLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE MACKIE:
"Also from the end of 2010 we initiate and extensively strengthened our relationship with Van Os the exclusive Burger King logistics and distribution company of Dutch Burger King stores." (Quote unchecked)
"It is alleged that the settlement agreement was entered into as a result of duress and/or coercion and/or force or threats." (Quote unchecked)
They Defendants say that by failing to comply with the settlement agreement or to recognise it, they marked the fact that it had been entered into by duress. Various breaches of operational standards are also denied, albeit those are not relied on by the Claimants for today's purposes, which denials are supported by some of the witness statements.
"The settlement agreement was signed for the purpose of a full settlement of all disputes by the parties. The only contract that can be taken in mind by the court is the second settlement agreement dated 7th April 2011." (Quote unchecked)
"A party relies on its existing contractual rights to drive a hard bargain is not on that ground alone guilty." (Quote unchecked)
The Court of Appeal in Seekey v. Ketch observed that it would be a relatively rare case in which lawful act duress could be established in a commercial context. There would have to be immoral or unconscionable pressure. There is no doubt that the relationship between a large franchisor and a smaller franchisee is potentially open to abuse, but the facts would have to be very striking to give rise to the defence of economic duress.