The High Court has granted interlocutory relief to Betty Martin Financial Services Limited in its dispute with EBS D.A.C. over notices terminating three tied agency agreements. The court found fair and serious issues for trial and concluded that the least risk of injustice lay in granting interim relief. It did not decide the underlying allegations or the parties’ ultimate rights.
The company, successor to the family business created by Betty Martin, had agreements covering EBS branches in Athlone, Longford and Lucan. It challenged a February 2018 termination notice. The company alleged that the notice followed its refusal to comply with pressure from an EBS senior official to mis-sell financial products and breach regulatory obligations. EBS denied those allegations. Mr Justice John Jordan said they were serious, detailed and unproved, and would require a full hearing.
The judge also identified a fair issue over the notice’s form. It did not refer specifically to the three separate agreements, although an earlier notice had done so. The court said there was an argument that the February notice was defective because it referred to an agreement that did not exist and had not been served as required by the contracts.
The company also argued that termination breached a collateral agreement, was capricious and lacked a bona fide commercial reason, or breached an implied term because it had refused to mis-sell products or complained about pressure to do so. The judge found a fair and serious issue to be tried on each ground, while expressly declining to decide their merits.
On interim relief, the judge considered damages inadequate because the threatened loss of the business and damage to its reputation would be difficult to quantify or repair. He said the balance of convenience favoured relief: the company continued to operate the branches, and EBS had not shown convincing evidence of significant loss from continued operation pending trial. The court also considered delay, but found it would be unfair and inequitable to refuse relief on that basis.
The judgment does not set out the final terms of the order. The judge said he would hear both sides on the form of the order and on costs.