Flagship Agencies Pte Ltd (formerly known as Adena Trading & Engineering Pte Ltd) v BBQ Express Pte Ltd (formerly known as Meadowbake Delicatessen Pte Ltd)

Flagship Agencies Pte Ltd (formerly known as Adena Trading & Engineering Pte Ltd) v BBQ Express Pte Ltd (formerly known as Meadowbake Delicatessen Pte Ltd)

The appeals were dismissed because the High Court found no clear error in the trial judge's factual findings on the existence of an opt-out clause and on the counterclaim items; special damages must be pleaded with particulars; the valuation order under clause 24(1) stands but the specific direction to use a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] SGHC 218
Parties
Plaintiff: Flagship Agencies Pte Ltd (formerly known as Adena Trading & Engineering Pte Ltd); Defendant: BBQ Express Pte Ltd (formerly known as Meadowbake Delicatessen Pte Ltd)
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
13 August 2001
Case Number
DCA 600005/2001
Procedural Posture
Contract Franchise Dispute / Appeal From District Court Judgment to High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; plaintiff's appeal dismissed; defendant's appeal dismissed except for a variation to the valuation order to delete the sentence directing a straight line five-year depreciation; costs to be borne by each party.
Legal Topics
Franchise Agreement, Opt Out Clause, Special Damages, Incorporation of Unsigned Terms, Valuation and Depreciation
Source Language
english
Contract Law Damages Evidence Franchise Agreement Opt Out Clause Special Damages Incorporation of Unsigned Terms Valuation and Depreciation

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flagship Agencies Pte Ltd (formerly known as Adena Trading & Engineering Pte Ltd)

Plaintiff

BBQ Express Pte Ltd (formerly known as Meadowbake Delicatessen Pte Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Franchise Dispute / Appeal From District Court Judgment to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an opt-out clause existed in the oral franchise agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings were clearly erroneous
  3. 3 Whether defendant's counterclaim items constituted special damages requiring particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the High Court found no clear error in the trial judge's factual findings on the existence of an opt-out clause and on the counterclaim items; special damages must be pleaded with particulars; the valuation order under clause 24(1) stands but the specific direction to use a straight line five-year depreciation was deleted for clarity.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; plaintiff's appeal dismissed; defendant's appeal dismissed except for a variation to the valuation order to delete the sentence directing a straight line five-year depreciation; costs to be borne by each party.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal dismissed
  • Defendant's appeal dismissed except that the orders are varied by deleting the sentence 'a straight line depreciation method over five years'