0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Commercial agents - what price termination?

11 July 2007

The House of Lords has finally settled the question of how a commercial agent should be compensated for the termination of an agency agreement under European legislation. In a decision likely to be welcomed by principals, the Lords have rejected the French approach of automatically awarding two years gross commission. In Lonsdale v Howard & Hallam Ltd [2007] UKHL 32, handed down on 4 July 2007, the Lords held that compensation should instead reflect the true market value of the agency business at the date of termination.

The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (Regulation 17) require a principal to compensate its agent if the agency agreement is terminated. The question that has vexed principals, agents and their advisers for some time, is how the correct level of compensation should be calculated under the Regulations. Before Lonsdale there were in essence two main strands of case law. The first strand adopted the French position of awarding agents two years gross commission regardless of the reasons or circumstances surrounding the termination. Agents tend to prefer this approach. The second strand of case law, favoured by principals, requires setting the level of compensation by reference to a long list of factors, including the length of the agency, whether the agent is free after termination to continue with the same customers, the nature of the client base and so on.

In Lonsdale, the Court of Appeal rejected both of these methodologies and the House of Lords agreed. Mr Lonsdale was a commercial agent for a footwear manufacturer. The business was failing and his commission earnings fell year by year until the manufacturer stopped trading and sold the brand to a competitor. The manufacturer paid Mr Lonsdale his contractual entitlement comprising the commission due on sales he had generated but disputed his statutory entitlement under the Regulations. Mr Lonsdale argued that the Court should apply the French approach which, he contended, had been adopted as Community law. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeals earlier decision and firmly rejected this argument.

The House of Lords held that it is necessary to ascertain what value could reasonably have been obtained, at the date of termination, for the rights which the agent had been enjoying. It gave some useful guidance as to what should be taken into account:

  • Compensation should reflect the value of the agency business; not some attributed share of the total goodwill of the brand
  • The valuation should be based on the net rather than gross earnings of the agent and apply a discount
  • If the agent is operating more than one agency the costs should be properly apportioned amongst them
  • It will always be assumed that the agency is assignable for valuation purposes
  • If the business is failing, the valuation of the agency should reflect this. If the relevant market is either rising or declining, this would affect what a hypothetical buyer would be willing to pay
  • If it is likely customers will defect to another principal, the valuation should reflect this

The Lonsdale case makes clear the approach to be taken in valuing compensation, but one concern parties have in this kind of case is the cost of expert evidence to value the business. Often agencies are simply too small to warrant the cost of an accountancy expert. The Lords suggest that it should be possible for the Court to have regard to the "going rate" for buying and selling comparable businesses but to give greater certainty, one option might be to include a valuation clause in the agency agreement setting out the basis for the valuation on termination.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Presenting a winding up petition to recover pandemic rent arrears

The government has now published new regulations to replace the winding up restrictions mentioned above from 1 October 2021. The key point of interest from a landlord and tenant perspective is that these new regulations will prevent a landlord from presenting a winding up petition to recover rent until 31 March 2022 where the sums are unpaid by the tenant because of the financial effect of the pandemic.


Legal updates

The government’s plans for dealing with Covid-19 rent arrears – some more details emerge

Last week, the government published a policy statement to deal with rent arrears accrued during the pandemic for those businesses affected by the pandemic.


Legal updates

Restrictions on landlords’ remedies extended again and extra protection to be given to certain businesses

The delay in the full easing of lockdown restrictions and the knock on effect for certain tenants (particularly those in the hospitality and entertainment industry) has clearly caused a change of heart and the government has now announced a further extension of the restrictions.


Legal updates

Commercial rents and Covid-19: Call for evidence

The government announced that it would be launching a call for evidence to help monitor the overall progress of negotiations between landlords and tenants for paying or writing off outstanding rents. This call for evidence has now been published.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up