Dublin after-school provider files High Court action over alleged franchise breach

An Irish High Court case centers on whether a former Sherpa Kids franchisee is operating a competing after-school service using the same branding, customers, and staff. Sunago Ltd. Operates under the Sherpa Kids brand, alleges that Emma Campbell and her new company Your Tribe Ltd are continuing the business in breach of a franchise agreement signed in 2021 with Platinum Childcare Ltd. The court issued short service of proceedings, and a hearing is expected to continue. The case highlights how franchise agreements protect brand and customer continuity, and what happens when relationships end.

What Sunago alleges and the legal action

Sunago Ltd, trading as Sherpa Kids, claims Emma Campbell is using the same staff, customers, and school setups to run a similar after-school service through Your Tribe Ltd in breach of a 2021 franchise agreement. The allegations include use of Sunago’s intellectual property and customer lists. The High Court granted short service of the proceedings on Campbell and Your Tribe, with consideration that the case may return to court the following week. This action aims to obtain an injunction and protect Sunago’s contractual rights.

Who is affected by the dispute

The immediate party is Sunago Ltd, the operator behind the Sherpa Kids brand. Emma Campbell is named as a director of Your Tribe Ltd, a new entity. The dispute concerns eight primary schools in Lucan (as referenced in initial filings) and the families and staff involved in the after-school service historically provided under the Sherpa Kids framework. If Sunago’s claim is successful, it could limit Campbell’s ability to operate a competing service using similar branding and contracts.

Practical next steps for readers seeking clarity

For families and schools: monitor court updates for any injunction orders or interim rulings, which may affect local after-school arrangements. For practitioners and businesses: review franchise agreements for clauses on non-solicitation, use of intellectual property, and post-termination restrictions. Expect further court filings as the case continues, with potential evidence on whether branding and customer connections are being replicated.

What remains unclear and questions to ask

Key questions include the exact terms of the 2021 franchise agreement, what constitutes “use of intellectual property” in this context, and how staff and customer relationships are defined in the filings. The court’s next steps will determine whether an injunction is granted to prevent continuing activities while the case proceeds. As always in civil disputes, the outcome depends on evidence presented and the precise contractual language involved.

Information and responsibility notice: This article is general information based on the cited material available when published. It is not legal, tax, immigration, medical, financial, banking, or investment advice; it does not create a professional-client relationship; and it is not a guarantee of outcome, availability, accuracy, or eligibility. Rules, schedules, prices, and third-party information can change. Confirm material decisions with the relevant authority and an appropriately qualified adviser before acting.