Hungry Jack's v Burger King - Addendum [1999] NSWSC 1130

Hungry Jack's v Burger King - Addendum [1999] NSWSC 1130

Certain references to Shell breaching fiduciary duties must be deleted or amended in the judgment, as Shell was not subject to the parties' remaining claims, did not have the opportunity to argue or respond, and the submissions and conduct of the case did not raise any claim against Shell. The judgment should reflect only findings against BKC based on submissions actually made and evidence led.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hungry Jack's Pty Limited; First Defendant: Burger King Corporation; Second Defendant: The Shell Company of Australia Limited; Third Defendant: Burger King Australia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment; Post Settlement Amendment
Outcome
Amendments to judgment granted as proposed; judgment to be amended as per paragraphs 19-21. Final orders pending parties' review.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Joint Venture, Settlement, Amendment of Judgment
Equity Commercial Law Fiduciary Duties Joint Venture Settlement Amendment of Judgment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hungry Jack's Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Burger King Corporation

First Defendant

The Shell Company of Australia Limited

Second Defendant

Burger King Australia Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment; Post Settlement Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to Shell's alleged breach of fiduciary duty in the original judgment should be deleted or amended, given settlement and procedural circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Certain references to Shell breaching fiduciary duties must be deleted or amended in the judgment, as Shell was not subject to the parties' remaining claims, did not have the opportunity to argue or respond, and the submissions and conduct of the case did not raise any claim against Shell. The judgment should reflect only findings against BKC based on submissions actually made and evidence led.

Court Disposition

Amendments to judgment granted as proposed; judgment to be amended as per paragraphs 19-21. Final orders pending parties' review.

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 amended to refer only to BKC breaching fiduciary duties.
  • Paragraph 300 amended to refer only to BKC and to delete references to Shell.