24 May 2006
RICHMASTERY LTD V RICHMASTERY (CENTRAL) LTD AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2005-470-951
- Citation
- openlaw-cf284794_1e22_4825_86f3_bba85771539f.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Court held there was a serious question to be tried because clause 15.2 can be reasonably interpreted to impose on the guarantor the same obligations as the franchisee, evidence showed arguable breaches by Mr Crisp (guest speaking and suspicious payment processing suggesting financial involvement), and the balance of convenience favoured granting a limited interim injunction to protect the franchisor's goodwill pending trial.