Judgments about distribution agreements have varied on what qualifies as reasonable notice of termination. The Privy Council has now clarified this in a recent decision regarding notice for ending an unwritten agreement. Stephen Sidkin of Fox Williams LLP explains its impact on suppliers and distributors when no notice period is specified.

 

Where a distribution agreement does not specify the period of notice of termination to be given by the supplier or the distributor to the other, what is a reasonable period of notice? It is an important question in any supplier/distributor relationship where termination rights are not expressly stated.

Fortunately, guidance has now been provided by the Privy Council in its very recent decision involving an international brewery and its Bahamian distributor, which concerned the giving of notice to end an unwritten distribution agreement.

Reasonable notice

The starting point is uncontroversial. Where a distribution agreement contains no mechanism for termination, the law implies a term that it may be brought to an end on reasonable notice. The difficulty lies not in stating that rule but in applying it. The Privy Council approached that task by identifying a series of propositions which bear on what length of notice is reasonable in a given commercial setting.

The judgment emphasises that the assessment is fact-sensitive and resists formula. It follows that it is not an exercise in applying a tariff based on the duration of the relationship. Nor is it concerned with compensating a party for the loss of future profits. Rather, the function of reasonable notice is to provide a fair opportunity for the recipient of the notice to adjust to the new position.

The Privy Council identified the relevant considerations as:

• the duration of the relationship;
• the character of the parties’ dealings;
• the extent of investment made in reliance on the arrangement; and
• the period reasonably required to put in place alternative arrangements.

These factors are not exhaustive, and their relative importance will vary. However, the judgment makes clear they are all directed to a common question: how long would it reasonably take for the distributor to reorganise its affairs?

The most significant factor

It is in that context that the Privy Council identified the most significant factor: the importance of the distribution agreement to the recipient’s business. This is not simply a matter of contribution to turnover. It concerns the extent to which the business is structured around the agreement, the availability of substitute products or relationships, and the practical difficulty of replacing what has been lost. An agreement which is central to a business and not readily substitutable may justify a longer period of notice than one which is peripheral or easily replaced.

This is illustrated by the facts of the case. The relationship between the brewery and the distributor had lasted for 40 years. Whilst that duration might suggest that a lengthy notice period would be reasonable, the Privy Council. refused to treat longevity as determinative. The length of the relationship was relevant, but only insofar as it bore on the extent to which the distributor had come to rely on the continuation of the agreement and the time reasonably required to adjust to its termination.

The issue of adjustment

It follows that a long relationship does not, of itself, create an entitlement to extended notice if the commercial reality is that the recipient can adjust within a shorter timeframe.

In examining the position of the distributor, the Privy Council focused on the structure of its business in that:

• The distributor was not exclusively tied to the supplier’s products. It handled a range of other brands and retained the ability to expand those lines or introduce alternatives.
• The supplier’s products constituted a relatively modest proportion of the distributor’s overall turnover.
• There was no evidence of substantial sunk investment that could not be redeployed by the distributor.
• Nor was there any indication that the distributor was locked into arrangements which would impede its ability to pivot.

Against that background, the Privy Council concluded that the distributor was not heavily dependent on the continuation of the relationship. The loss of the supplier’s products would have commercial consequences, but it would not fundamentally undermine the business or require a prolonged period of restructuring. That conclusion was central to the assessment of reasonable notice. It pointed towards a shorter period than might otherwise have been expected, given the history of the relationship.

Other factors

The Privy Council also considered other factors identified in its list of propositions. It examined whether there had been significant investment made by the distributor specifically for the agreement and whether any such investment would require time to amortise. It looked at the operational realities of the distribution business, including stock management and the lead time for sourcing replacement products. It took into account that the agreement was unwritten and contained no express provision as to duration or termination. Each of these elements informed the overall assessment, but none displaced the central importance of the distributor’s ability to adjust.

So, what was reasonable?

The reasoning culminated in the conclusion that a notice period of approximately three months was reasonable in the circumstances. In contrast, the suggestion that the long duration of the relationship required a significantly longer period was rejected. As the judgment makes clear, reasonable notice is not a reward for loyalty or longevity. It is a practical mechanism designed to mitigate the disruption caused by termination.

Takeaway points

For suppliers, the decision underscores the importance of understanding how their products fit within a distributor’s business. Where a distributor is highly dependent on a particular supply arrangement, termination without a substantial notice period may expose the supplier to a judgment that the implied term has been breached. Conversely, where the distributor operates a diversified portfolio and can readily substitute products, the supplier may be entitled to bring the relationship to an end on relatively short notice. The absence of an express termination clause does not prevent termination, but it does introduce uncertainty, which will be resolved by reference to the factual matrix.

For distributors, the judgment highlights the risks inherent in relying on informal or indefinite arrangements. A long-standing relationship does not guarantee protection against short-notice termination. The critical question will be whether the business is, in substance, dependent on that relationship and how readily it can adapt. Distributors who invest heavily in promoting or distributing a particular supplier’s products, or who structure their operations around that relationship, may be in a stronger position to argue for a longer notice period. However, that argument will depend on evidence of real reliance and difficulty of replacement, not merely the passage of time.

www.distributorlaw.co.uk
www.agentlaw.co.uk
www.fashionlaw.co.uk
www.foxwilliams.com

© Fox Williams LLP 2026