Miniskips Ltd v Sheltan Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 691

Miniskips Ltd v Sheltan Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 691

There is little basis for relief against forfeiture in the circumstances; the respondent breached clear contractual requirements and continued to hold itself out as a franchisee, justifying the continuation of the injunction until trial. The evidence does not reveal sufficient prospects of the respondent's defence succeeding, and the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Miniskips Limited; Respondent: Sheltan Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Misleading Conduct, Interlocutory Injunctions, Franchise Agreement Termination, Balance of Convenience
Trade Practices Commercial Law Misleading Conduct Interlocutory Injunctions Franchise Agreement Termination Balance of Convenience

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miniskips Limited

Applicant

Sheltan Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should issue against the respondent continuing to hold itself out as a franchisee after alleged termination of franchise agreement
  2. 2 Validity of the purported termination of the franchise agreement by the applicant
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious question to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies

Ratio Decidendi

There is little basis for relief against forfeiture in the circumstances; the respondent breached clear contractual requirements and continued to hold itself out as a franchisee, justifying the continuation of the injunction until trial. The evidence does not reveal sufficient prospects of the respondent's defence succeeding, and the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Upon the usual undertaking by applicant's counsel, the respondent and its agents are restrained in terms of the interim order of Northrop J made 13 November 1987 until trial or further order.
  • Costs of the application are reserved.