Min & Min 2020 Pty Ltd v Chicken V Pty Ltd and Anor [2024] NSWDC 487

Min & Min 2020 Pty Ltd v Chicken V Pty Ltd and Anor [2024] NSWDC 487

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that misleading or deceptive representations were made as pleaded or that, even if made, they were material to the applicant's decision to enter the contract. There was no contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The documentary and objective evidence did not support the applicant's case. Even if liability existed, no loss was proved to be caused by the alleged conduct. Accordingly, the applicant's claim fails. The respondent's cross-claim for unpaid fees and licence fees, as well as costs, succeeded as a matter of construction and intention of the relevant contractual documents.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Min & Min 2020 Pty Ltd; Second Cross Defendant: Soon Yong Kang; First Defendant/cross Claimant: Chicken V Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Yun Kyong Sim
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Judgment for the Cross-Claimant in an amount to be agreed or determined. Costs ordered against Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant and Second Cross-Defendant.
Legal Topics
Franchise Agreement, Licence Agreement, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Proper Construction of License Agreement, Damages, Causation
Contract Consumer Law Franchise Agreement Licence Agreement Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Proper Construction of License Agreement Damages Causation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Min & Min 2020 Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Soon Yong Kang

Second Cross Defendant

Chicken V Pty Ltd

First Defendant/cross Claimant

Yun Kyong Sim

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What message was conveyed concerning the liquor licence and/or the previous tenant?
  2. 2 Was the proved conduct of Chicken V misleading or deceptive, and thus a contravention of s 18 of the ACL?
  3. 3 If there has been a contravention, did it cause any damage?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that misleading or deceptive representations were made as pleaded or that, even if made, they were material to the applicant's decision to enter the contract. There was no contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The documentary and objective evidence did not support the applicant's case. Even if liability existed, no loss was proved to be caused by the alleged conduct. Accordingly, the applicant's claim fails. The respondent's cross-claim for unpaid fees and licence fees, as well as costs, succeeded as a matter of construction and intention of the relevant contractual documents.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Judgment for the Cross-Claimant in an amount to be agreed or determined. Costs ordered against Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant and Second Cross-Defendant.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • Judgment for the Cross-Claimant against both Cross-Defendants on the cross-claim in an amount to be agreed or determined by Judge Newlinds SC.