Kaytonruby, Pty Ltd & Ors v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 650

Kaytonruby, Pty Ltd & Ors v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 650

The claims of the applicants fail with respect to most allegations because either the representations relied on were not made as pleaded, or were not relied upon, or were not misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Only certain general assurances about franchisor support and assistance were partially relied on, but these were embodied in the contract rather than being actionable pre-contractual representations.

Parties
Applicant: Kaytonruby Pty Ltd; Applicant: Christopher Wai Heang Leong; Applicant: Lillian Poh Har Leong; Respondent: Glev Franchises Pty Ltd; Respondent: Glev Pty Ltd; Respondent: Evangelos Demetriou Christou; Respondent: Tulloch and Associates Pty Ltd; Respondent: Alan Tulloch; Respondent: Franchise Developments Pty Ltd; Respondent: Leo Reyes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Determination (separate Question)
Outcome
Application adjourned for further directions.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Franchise Agreements, Remedies for Misrepresentation
Commercial Law Contract Law Franchising Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Franchise Agreements Remedies for Misrepresentation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaytonruby Pty Ltd

Applicant

Christopher Wai Heang Leong

Applicant

Lillian Poh Har Leong

Applicant

Glev Franchises Pty Ltd

Respondent

Glev Pty Ltd

Respondent

Evangelos Demetriou Christou

Respondent

Tulloch and Associates Pty Ltd

Respondent

Alan Tulloch

Respondent

Franchise Developments Pty Ltd

Respondent

Leo Reyes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Determination (separate Question)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which, if any, of the representations pleaded in sub-paragraphs (a) to (aa) of the further amended statement of claim were: (a) made by or on behalf of any and which of the respondents; (b) relied on by the applicants in entering into the franchise agreement dated 1 July 1991; and (c) except insofar as they were in relation to future matters, misleading or deceptive?

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the applicants fail with respect to most allegations because either the representations relied on were not made as pleaded, or were not relied upon, or were not misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Only certain general assurances about franchisor support and assistance were partially relied on, but these were embodied in the contract rather than being actionable pre-contractual representations.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned for further directions.

Orders

  • The application be adjourned for further directions to a date to be fixed.