Norris v Cleaning Wizard (QLD) Pty Limited & Anor [2000] NSWIRComm 135

Norris v Cleaning Wizard (QLD) Pty Limited & Anor [2000] NSWIRComm 135

The franchise agreement was unfair insofar as the franchisor did not deliver on its promise to provide further work to the applicant, where the original contracts were pitched low to attract further work and where Mr Norris continued to seek more work for which the franchisor did not adequately respond. There was no misrepresentation as to the nature of the franchise at entry, and no case against the second respondent. Variation of the contract rather than voiding was appropriate, with a partial refund and termination provision granted.

Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey James Norris; First Respondent: Cleaning Wizard (QLD) Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Michael David Nye
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part: contract varied, partial refund ordered, costs adjusted; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Franchise Agreements, Misrepresentation, Remedies and Variation of Contract, Award Comparison, Obligations of Franchisor
Industrial Law Contract Law Unfair Contract Franchise Agreements Misrepresentation Remedies and Variation of Contract Award Comparison Obligations of Franchisor

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey James Norris

Applicant

Cleaning Wizard (QLD) Pty Limited

First Respondent

Michael David Nye

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the franchise agreement was unfair under s106 Industrial Relations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether representations were made and relied upon regarding provision of work
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to monetary remedies or variation of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The franchise agreement was unfair insofar as the franchisor did not deliver on its promise to provide further work to the applicant, where the original contracts were pitched low to attract further work and where Mr Norris continued to seek more work for which the franchisor did not adequately respond. There was no misrepresentation as to the nature of the franchise at entry, and no case against the second respondent. Variation of the contract rather than voiding was appropriate, with a partial refund and termination provision granted.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: contract varied, partial refund ordered, costs adjusted; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Contract between Mr Norris and Wizard varied to reduce franchise fee to $10,000 in lieu of $40,000.
  • Contract varied to provide for termination upon notice as of judgment date.