This matter commenced with an ex parte claim by the applicants for injunctive relief preventing the respondent franchisor from taking back a franchised restaurant at the expiry of the term contained in a Franchise Agreement. Subsequently, orders were made that the interlocutory injunction be discharged if the first applicant did not pay certain amounts by various stipulated dates and times. The first applicant failed to meet the conditions for the continuation of the injunction, and the injunction was thereby discharged.

In the Amended Originating Application (which was dismissed) certain claims for declaratory relief were made including a claim that the respondent breached cl 18(2)(a) of the Franchising Code. In dismissing that claim, the Court applied the principle that a declaration will not be granted if it will produce no foreseeable consequences for the parties or have no utility: Gardner v Dairy Industry Authority of New South Wales (1977) 18 ALR 55 at 69 (Mason J, with whom Jacobs and Murphy JJ agreed), 71 (Aickin J); Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2) (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 99 (Sheppard J); Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Alvaton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 760 at [29(d)] (Gilmour J). In the present case, it was held that a declaration would not serve any real purpose and was declined.

In the statement of claim oral contracts between the franchisee and franchisor were alleged relating to alleged agreements to extend the franchise term and to grant a new franchise over a new restaurant. Those alleged oral statements were said to give rise to causes of action in (a) contract, (b) promissory estoppel, (c) misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), (d) unconscionable conduct in contravention of the ACL (presumably a reference to s 21 of the ACL), and (e) breach of the obligation of good faith pursuant to cl 6 of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth) (Franchising Code).

The Court did not accept the applicants’ evidence concerning disputed conversations and dismissed the application.

From an evidentiary perspective, the judgment also considered the reasoning of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Wild v Meduri [2024] FCA 230. This is referred to in the Practice Area, “Practice and Procedure” – “Admissibility and weight of evidence”.

This matter involved the construction of clauses contained in a Franchise Agreement in consequence of the defendant’s non-renewal of that agreement for a further term. In reaching its conclusion that the defendant was bound to consider the best interests of the plaintiff, the court applied what was stated by Edelman J in H Lundbeck A/S v Sandoz Pty Ltd; CNS Pharma Pty Ltd v Sandoz Pty Ltd (2022) 276 CLR 170. The matter also involved an application relating to the admissibility of an expert report on the basis that the report was said to be based upon facts not independently proved: see, Lindfield NSW Pty Ltd v Netdeen Pty Ltd trading as GJ Gardner Homes [2024] NSWSC 982. A Notice of Intention to Appeal was filed shortly after judgment was given.

This matter, which settled on the third day of a hearing before Ball J in 2022, involved claims by a franchisor against two guarantors of a franchisee company's obligations pursuant to a franchise agreement.

This matter was an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court where the primary judge had found that certain contractual clauses were void for uncertainty.

This matter concerned allegations of breach of a franchise agreement.

These proceedings involved a franchise dispute and centred upon whether an option to renew was validly exercised and whether or not there was a substantial breach of two the franchise agreements. Allegations of unconscionable conduct were also raised as well as a failure to act in good faith. The matter subsequently successfully appealed to the Federal Court.

This matter involved an appeal from the decision of Ball J (Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd (ACN 108 880 968) & Ors v Bank of Queensland Limited (ACN 009 656 740) (No 17) and 13 related matters [2014] NSWSC 55) which dealt with 10 separate franchise cases involving the Bank of Queensland and certain branch owner-managers. The matter were all were heard together. The appeals in all 10 matters raised issues concerning the trial judge’s handling of allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct said to have arisen in relation to the negotiation and formation of franchise agreements under which franchisees operated branches as agents of a bank. Issues of whether alleged statements made by the bank as to volumes of future business were statements as to what franchisees will likely achieve or statements regarding hypothetical possibility. Issues of “silence” in the context of the bank not volunteering information regarding business volumes achieved by existing franchisees were raised and whether maintaining of silence on that matter was misleading or deceptive conduct.

These proceedings involved 10 separate matters which were heard together. The matters were brought by a number of franchisees of the Bank of Queensland, all of whom operated branches of the Bank in New South Wales. In summary, those franchisees, claimed, among other things, that they were induced to enter into their respective franchise agreements and to continue to operate branches of the Bank by misleading or deceptive conduct by the Bank in contravention of section 52, as it then was, of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now the Competition & Consumer Act 2010)(the TPA) and section 42, as it then was, of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (the FTA). One of the issues raised by the claims based on contraventions of section 52 of the TPA and section 42 of the FTA was whether, on the assumption that the Bank made certain representations to the franchisees and on the assumption that those representations were properly characterised as representations with respect to the future, the BOQ had reasonable grounds for making them. Some of the matters involved personal injuries claims arising from the Bank’s alleged conduct in operating the branch system and in terminating certain owner managers.

The hearing of the matters ran for over 100 days and involved numerous interlocutory applications which are referred to in the Practice and Procedure Practice Area on this web-site.

This matter involved an appeal from a decision of Buchanan J [2010] FCA 1010 and involved claims for negligence, misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionability and breach of contract against a Bank who operated a franchise network of branches.

This dispute raised issues concerning regarding the enforceability of the deed of settlement and release. It also raised an application for a separate question.

This was an appeal from the decision of Justice Peterson: see [2002] NSWIRComm308. On appeal, the question was whether the arrangement between Wendys Supa Sundays and the respondents was unfair within the meaning of the Act and whether the Judge had erred in making certain findings concerning false representations and unfairness and in apportioning liability.

This matter arose out of the judgment given in Pilgrim and Anor v Wendy's Supa Sundaes Pty Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWIRComm 198, and concerned costs and contribution arguments.

This matter arose out of the judgment given in Pilgrim and Anor v Wendy's Supa Sundaes Pty Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWIRComm 198, and concerned alleged factual errors made in the judgment.

This case concerned an application under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, in circumstances of a franchise. The criteria for unfairness was examined and applied in favour of the Applicants.

This matter involved a damages claim for breach of franchise agreements.

This matter involved a franchise dispute where allegations of breach of certain restraint provisions contained in a franchise agreement had been made.