The only way franchisee Kimdelia Cole could see out of a bitter commercial dispute was a "black ops" mission.
So, under the cover of darkness, the Darwin businesswoman arranged to have the cafe building she owned picked up and taken to another location, in a bid to cut ties with Muzz Buzz — a Perth-based coffee conglomerate, with whom she had been a franchisee.
"Within the first four weeks [as a franchisee] we had alarm bells and issues arising," she said.
"We were left to our own devices, so the supposed support and whatnot that you pay for in your franchising fees, we were not receiving.
"We had no sublease. All of these things came up in the first few weeks and were never rectified."
Though Muzz Buzz has unequivocally rejected those claims, the one thing the pair can agree on is that despite repeated attempts at mediation, the relationship soured.
Ms Cole claims she lodged a notice of dispute to terminate her franchise agreement. The company rebuts she simply "stopped paying rent".
Fed up with the back-and-forth, Ms Cole decided to take action into her own hands. Though Muzz Buzz leases the land on which her cafe sat, she owns the building.
And so, hidden by nightfall in the early hours of Sunday morning, she removed the 4x12-metre drive-through cafe — without a permit.
"We had actually been left with no other option but to organise a black ops operation," she said.
"Here we are just average joes, not trying to make millions but just trying to get on with life and have a good business.
"We pretty much got left with no other choice, we had to do what we had to do."
Business 'subsidised' for six months
It is a saga now destined to play out in court, as Muzz Buzz pursues legal action.
"It's her building, but we have the trademark rights over the building and it can't be used for anything but a Muzz Buzz and she was well aware of that," said Warren Reynolds, Muzz Buzz chairman.
"In the disclosure document it states that … she signed off on reading the disclosure document."
Mr Reynolds also disputes a raft of claims made by Ms Cole — including the lack of a sublease.
"Do you think her bank would have given her the funding to undertake this venture without having a sublease?" he said.
"She paid the rent happily for 18 months, she ceased paying the rent in March this year … [there is] six months' rent that she hasn't paid to us and I've paid on her behalf.
"Six months' electricity, six months' water … I've paid all of that and subsidised their business for the past six months."
But Ms Cole is standing by her decision — despite the legal challenge.
"We're trying our hardest to stay afloat," she said.
"[But] hopefully, you know, the 'little people' will end up getting back into business."
