AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Coade (No. 2) [2010] NSWSC 1179

AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Coade (No. 2) [2010] NSWSC 1179

Leave was granted because the defendants' proposed argument that cl 17.3(c) and cl 17.3(d) did not permit an amendment allowing sub-master franchises was reasonably arguable and not hopeless; the evidence supported that a master franchise manual existed in 2003 and the plaintiff had not produced evidence of any earlier manual containing a sub-master franchise provision; any asserted need for further evidence was not supported by evidence; and the 2009 manual had been introduced by the plaintiff at a late stage on a limited re-opening.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling; Application for Leave to Re Open Case / After Principal Judgment Delivered and Before Final Orders
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to re-open the case.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Re Open' 'tender of Further Evidence' 'finality of Litigation' 'master Franchise Agreement' 'operations Manual']
['procedure' 'supreme Court Procedure'] ['application for Leave to Re Open' 'tender of Further Evidence' 'finality of Litigation' 'master Franchise Agreement' 'operations Manual']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling; Application for Leave to Re Open Case / After Principal Judgment Delivered and Before Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should be granted leave to re-open the case after principal judgment to tender the 2002 manual and 2003 addendum annexed to Katrina Adele White's affidavit." 'Whether granting leave would lack utility because the proposed argument based on the 2002 manual was hopeless or doomed to failure.' 'Whether any prejudice or need for further evidence justified refusing leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the defendants' proposed argument that cl 17.3(c) and cl 17.3(d) did not permit an amendment allowing sub-master franchises was reasonably arguable and not hopeless; the evidence supported that a master franchise manual existed in 2003 and the plaintiff had not produced evidence of any earlier manual containing a sub-master franchise provision; any asserted need for further evidence was not supported by evidence; and the 2009 manual had been introduced by the plaintiff at a late stage on a limited re-opening.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to re-open the case.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the defendants to re-open the case by tendering what has been described as KAW 1 and KAW 2, annexed to the affidavit of Katrina Adele White sworn 17 August 2010.']