Back to Insights listing

Commercial disputes, International / offshoreMonday 20 April 2026

Privy Council Judgment in the Battle of the Brewers

The Privy Council has recently handed down judgment in long-running litigation between a Heineken subsidiary (Commonwealth Brewery) and Anheuser-Busch International, a subsidiary of the brewing conglomerate that manufactures Budweiser and other products.

Commonwealth Brewery was for over 40 years the exclusive distributor in the Bahamas for Anheuser’s products including Budweiser. The distribution agreement had no fixed term but was subject to an implied term that it was terminable on reasonable notice. Anheuser sought to terminate the distribution agreement by giving 3 1/2 months’ notice.

The issue in the litigation was whether this was a reasonable notice period. The judge at first instance held that it was not and that a minimum of 15 months was required. This was overturned on appeal. Commonwealth Brewery then appealed to the Privy Council.

Lord Hodge, giving the judgment of the Board, conducted a detailed review of the relevant case law on distribution agreements for the purposes of identifying the principles to be applied by a court when assessing whether a period of notice for termination is reasonable. Lord Hodge identified a non-exhaustive list of seven relevant factors from the case law.

Applying these factors to the case before it, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the appeal court and dismissed the appeal.

Alan Gourgey KC, leading Christopher Jenkins KC and Chizelle Cargill of Lennox Paton (Bahamas), acted for the successful respondent to the appeal.

Read the full judgment

People to view:

Share by: Email

Related Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Articles

    A fiduciary’s duty to disclose: a shield, not a sword?

    In the latest edition of our commercial litigation insights series, Alice Hawker examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in G.I. Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, considering whether a fiduciary's duty to disclose is a shield (against claims alleging breach of the ’no conflict’ or ’no profit’ rules) or a sword (to be used as a freestanding claim).

    By Alice Hawker
    Monday 19 October 2026

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Articles

    Nelson, what does your right eye see? When does wilful ignorance amount to dishonesty

    In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Ernest Leung analyses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Grosvenor Property Developers Limited v Portner Law Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1238, which provides important guidance on the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims and the circumstances in which "Nelsonian" or blind-eye knowledge can be imputed to a party.

    By Ernest Leung
    Tuesday 13 October 2026

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Judgment of the ECSC Court of Appeal delivered in JSC BTA Bank v Mamesh and others

    Civil fraud and asset recovery, Commercial disputes

    Thomas Grant KC
    Friday 9 October 2026

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Permission to proceed? Derivative claim denied

    Company law, Commercial disputes, Joint venture and partnership disputes, Trusts, probate and estates: contentious

    Nikki Singla KC | Caspar Bartscherer
    Tuesday 6 October 2026

    View more

View all thought leadership