Miscela Ltd & Ors v Coffee Republic Retail Ltd

Miscela Ltd & Ors v Coffee Republic Retail Ltd

Clause 2.2 of the Franchise Agreement did not confer any property rights to Miscela, as CRFL had no such rights to grant. The only rights conferred were intellectual property rights. Any right of occupation was governed by the underlease with CRUK, a separate company. The alleged implied terms were neither necessary nor consistent with the express terms of the Franchise Agreement. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Miscela Limited; Claimant: Deepal Shehan Goonetillake; Claimant: Marcela Goonetillake; Defendant/respondent: Coffee Republic Retail Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Franchise Agreements, Implied Terms in Contracts, Corporate Structure and Liability
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Franchise Agreements Implied Terms in Contracts Corporate Structure and Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miscela Limited

Claimant/appellant

Deepal Shehan Goonetillake

Claimant

Marcela Goonetillake

Claimant

Coffee Republic Retail Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of clause 2.2 of the Franchise Agreement
  2. 2 Whether terms should be implied into the Franchise Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 2.2 of the Franchise Agreement did not confer any property rights to Miscela, as CRFL had no such rights to grant. The only rights conferred were intellectual property rights. Any right of occupation was governed by the underlease with CRUK, a separate company. The alleged implied terms were neither necessary nor consistent with the express terms of the Franchise Agreement. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against Master Eyre’s decision dismissed
  • Master Eyre’s judgment affirmed