CT Money Pty Ltd & Ors v GJ & SG Thompson (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 528

CT Money Pty Ltd & Ors v GJ & SG Thompson (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 528

Darranda breached the Franchise Agreement by failing to interview Mrs Nahas and verify information before the Nahas loan application was submitted and approved, and the defendant would be obliged to indemnify CT Franchises for a relevant loss. However, the relevant loss was suffered by CT Money. The plaintiffs failed to prove any oral agreement, effective written agreement at the relevant time, agency relationship, trust, or benefit and burden basis by which CT Money's loss could be sheeted home to CT Franchises and then to the defendant. The claims therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List Contract, Agency and Trusts Claim Concerning Indemnity Under Franchise Arrangements / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Claims in the Further Amended Statement of Claim Dismissed
Outcome
Claims in the Further Amended Statement of Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['franchise Agreements' 'indemnity' 'oral Agreement' 'written Agreement Post Dating Relevant Events' 'implied Agency' 'trust of Contractual Benefits' 'benefit and Burden']
['contract' 'agency' 'trusts'] ['franchise Agreements' 'indemnity' 'oral Agreement' 'written Agreement Post Dating Relevant Events' 'implied Agency' 'trust of Contractual Benefits' 'benefit and Burden']

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

Equity Division Commercial List Contract, Agency and Trusts Claim Concerning Indemnity Under Franchise Arrangements / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Claims in the Further Amended Statement of Claim Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Darranda breached the Franchise Agreement by failing to interview Mrs Nahas and check the accuracy of information provided for the Nahas loan application.' 'Whether CT Franchises was contractually required to indemnify CT Money for the loss CT Money suffered after AFIG/AMS required CT Money to purchase the Nahas Mortgage.' "Whether an oral agreement in or about November 2005 established an indemnity from CT Franchises to CT Money for claims arising from acts or omissions of CT Franchises' franchisees." 'Whether the 4 August 2009 Agreement provided a basis for indemnity in respect of the relevant earlier events.' 'Whether CT Franchises entered into franchise agreements as agent for CT Money or CT Money entered into the Correspondent Deed as agent for CT Franchises.' 'Whether CT Franchises held benefits of franchise agreements on trust for CT Money or CT Money held benefits of the Correspondent Deed on trust for CT Franchises.' 'Whether a benefit and burden claim could succeed if the agency and trust claims failed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Darranda breached the Franchise Agreement by failing to interview Mrs Nahas and verify information before the Nahas loan application was submitted and approved, and the defendant would be obliged to indemnify CT Franchises for a relevant loss. However, the relevant loss was suffered by CT Money. The plaintiffs failed to prove any oral agreement, effective written agreement at the relevant time, agency relationship, trust, or benefit and burden basis by which CT Money's loss could be sheeted home to CT Franchises and then to the defendant. The claims therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Claims in the Further Amended Statement of Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Claims in the Further Amended Statement of Claim are dismissed.' 'If the parties are unable to agree on a costs order, argument on costs will be heard on a mutually convenient date to be arranged with the Associate.']