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 an application for an injunction on an interim and final basis.
This matter involved an application for an injunction on an interim and final basis.
This matter involved an application for an injunction.
This matter involved an application for a party to be released from undertakings given to the Court.
This matter dealt with injunctive relief.
This matter dealt with injunctive relief.
This matter involved an application for a party to be released from undertakings given to the Court.
This matter involved an application for a party to be released from undertakings given to the Court.
This matter involved an application to discontinue an interlocutory injunction restraining a party from dealing with a fixed deposit into which it was claimed to trace part of the proceeds of funds obtained by fraud.
This matter involved an application for an injunction.
This matter involved an application for a Mareva injunction.
