Hurley v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 124

Hurley v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 124

The respondent is not required to discover documents in the possession of franchisees because entitlement to information and reports under a license agreement does not confer actual possession or control of those documents.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Janette Lyn Hurley; Respondent: McDonald's Australia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Discovery Application / Ruling on Discovery Order
Outcome
No order be made with respect to documents in the possession of McDonald's franchisees.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Possession or Control of Documents, Franchise Agreements
Civil Procedure Discovery Possession or Control of Documents Franchise Agreements

Source-derived case record

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

Janette Lyn Hurley

Applicant

McDonald's Australia Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Discovery Application / Ruling on Discovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to discover documents in possession of franchisees
  2. 2 Whether entitlement to information or reports under license agreements implies possession or control of documents

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is not required to discover documents in the possession of franchisees because entitlement to information and reports under a license agreement does not confer actual possession or control of those documents.

Court Disposition

No order be made with respect to documents in the possession of McDonald's franchisees.

Orders

  • No order be made with respect to documents in the possession of McDonald's franchisees.