Mark Clifford & Ors v Eagle Boys Dial-A-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 30

Mark Clifford & Ors v Eagle Boys Dial-A-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 30

The franchise agreements between the respondent and third and fourth applicants were unfair insofar as there was a substantial disparity between the advertising levy paid and the amount actually expended locally for the applicants' benefit; this lack of fairness rendered the contracts void from inception and entitled the applicants to compensation equivalent to the difference between 4.5% of gross revenue and actual local advertising expenditure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Franchise agreements between respondent and third and fourth applicants are declared void from commencement; monetary compensation awarded; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'franchise Agreements' 'advertising Levy' 'pricing Regime' 'remedies for Unfairness']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'franchise Agreements' 'advertising Levy' 'pricing Regime' 'remedies for Unfairness']

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

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the franchise agreements between applicants and respondent were unfair pursuant to s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'Whether disparity between advertising levy paid and local expenditure constituted unfairness' 'Whether pricing regime imposed by the franchisor was unfair' 'Whether fee structure and other terms of the franchise agreements were unfair']

Ratio Decidendi

The franchise agreements between the respondent and third and fourth applicants were unfair insofar as there was a substantial disparity between the advertising levy paid and the amount actually expended locally for the applicants' benefit; this lack of fairness rendered the contracts void from inception and entitled the applicants to compensation equivalent to the difference between 4.5% of gross revenue and actual local advertising expenditure.

Court Disposition

Franchise agreements between respondent and third and fourth applicants are declared void from commencement; monetary compensation awarded; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Franchise agreements and all ancillary documentation between respondent and third and fourth applicants are declared void from their commencement, but payments already made by applicants to respondent are not affected.' 'Respondent to pay third applicant the sum of $84,023.34 and fourth applicant the sum of...