Robert McGill Freier & Anor v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 61

Robert McGill Freier & Anor v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 61

The plaintiffs failed to establish a serious question to be tried. Properly construed, the notice was a cl 22(b) notice giving 90 days' notice, and the reference to 1 February 2012 was only a misstatement of when the 90 days expired. The exercise of an express contractual right to terminate an indefinite agreement on notice, with compensation and offers to reconsider compensation and mediate, was not arguably unconscionable merely because the plaintiffs disputed the accuracy of the reason given. In any event, delay and the balance of convenience weighed against interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Application for Interlocutory Injunction to Restrain Termination of Licensed Post Office Agreement
Outcome
The plaintiffs' application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'termination of Contract' 'interpretation of Notice of Termination' 'termination Without Cause' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'franchising Code of Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract' 'consumer Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'termination of Contract' 'interpretation of Notice of Termination' 'termination Without Cause' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'franchising Code of Conduct']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Application for Interlocutory Injunction to Restrain Termination of Licensed Post Office Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs had a serious question to be tried that the termination notice was invalid because it failed to give 90 days' notice." "Whether the plaintiffs had an arguable case that Australia Post's termination of the agreement was unconscionable under s 22, now s 21, of the Australian Consumer Law." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish a serious question to be tried. Properly construed, the notice was a cl 22(b) notice giving 90 days' notice, and the reference to 1 February 2012 was only a misstatement of when the 90 days expired. The exercise of an express contractual right to terminate an indefinite agreement on notice, with compensation and offers to reconsider compensation and mediate, was not arguably unconscionable merely because the plaintiffs disputed the accuracy of the reason given. In any event, delay and the balance of convenience weighed against interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs' application for interlocutory relief be dismissed." "The costs of the application be the defendant's costs in the cause."]