Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 398

Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 398

Leave to appeal was refused because the docket judge's discretionary decision was attended by no sufficient doubt; there was no substantive evidence of misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct by the respondent, and the undertaking and letter to group members offered adequate protection, with no substantial injustice shown.

Parties
Applicant: Davaria Pty Limited; First Respondent: 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: 7-Eleven Inc (A Texas Corporation); Third Respondent: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ABN 11 005 357 522)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Group Proceeding / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Franchise Agreements, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Class Actions, Communication With Group Members, Practice and Procedure
Commercial Law Corporations Law Franchise Agreements Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Unconscionable Conduct Class Actions Communication With Group Members Practice and Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davaria Pty Limited

Applicant

7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd

First Respondent

7-Eleven Inc (A Texas Corporation)

Second Respondent

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ABN 11 005 357 522)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Group Proceeding / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from a discretionary interlocutory judgment
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's communications with group members warranted restraint under s 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether releases sought by respondent were unfair, misleading or unconscionable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the docket judge's discretionary decision was attended by no sufficient doubt; there was no substantive evidence of misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct by the respondent, and the undertaking and letter to group members offered adequate protection, with no substantial injustice shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to that application, but otherwise there be no order as to costs.