GATEHOUSE V MIDDLETON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-808

GATEHOUSE V MIDDLETON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-808

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court correctly applied orthodox principles in implying the contractual term (business efficacy/obvious intention), clause 88 was properly interpreted as not excluding implied terms, and the issues did not raise sufficient public or private importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

Citation
openlaw-6a0a6d92_fd2c_4487_8acb_2253c94af966.pdf
Parties
Appellant: Christopher Charles Gatehouse; First Respondent: Peter John Middleton; Second Respondent: Karen Margaret Middleton
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (second Appeal) / High Court Oral Judgment on Application for Leave
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal declined
Legal Topics
Implication of Terms, Exclusion Clauses, Business Efficacy, Cancellation for Repudiation, Leave to Appeal
Contract Law Civil Procedure Franchise Law Appeals Implication of Terms Exclusion Clauses Business Efficacy Cancellation for Repudiation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Charles Gatehouse

Appellant

Peter John Middleton

First Respondent

Karen Margaret Middleton

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (second Appeal) / High Court Oral Judgment on Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed requiring franchisor to pass quotes to operator within territory
  2. 2 Whether clause 88 of the contract precluded implication of that term
  3. 3 Whether the points raised are of sufficient public or private importance to justify leave to pursue a second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court correctly applied orthodox principles in implying the contractual term (business efficacy/obvious intention), clause 88 was properly interpreted as not excluding implied terms, and the issues did not raise sufficient public or private importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal declined

Orders

  • Leave to appeal declined
  • Costs and reasonable disbursements awarded to the respondents on a 2B basis