Solomons Franchise Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Taydex Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 382

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. VG 30 of 1994 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SOLOMONS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS PTY. LTD. ACN 008 094 899 First Applicant AND: NO. 1 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 995 Second Applicant AND: NO. 2 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 986 Third Applicant AND: NO. 3 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 977 Fourth Applicant AND: TAYDEX PTY. LTD. ACN 010 809 739 First Respondent AND: MICHAEL ROY PARR Second Respondent AND: CLIVE JOHN WALKER Third Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 8 June, 1995 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of motion be dismissed. 2. The second respondent pay the first applicant's costs of hearing the notice of motion, to be taxed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. VG 30 of 1994 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SOLOMONS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS PTY. LTD. ACN 008 094 899 First Applicant AND: NO. 1 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 995 Second Applicant AND: NO. 2 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 986 Third Applicant AND: NO. 3 RABEREM PTY. LTD. ACN 007 733 977 Fourth Applicant AND: TAYDEX PTY. LTD. ACN 010 809 739 First Respondent AND: MICHAEL ROY PARR Second Respondent AND: CLIVE JOHN WALKER Third Respondent Coram: Drummond J Date: 8 June, 1995 Place: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by Mr. Parr, the second respondent in the proceedings, for leave, pursuant to O. 9, r. 1 the Federal Court Rules, to represent Taydex Pty. Ltd., the first respondent company in the proceedings. Mr. Parr is a director of that particular company. The only live issue on the applicants' claims against the first and second respondent is the first applicant's claim for payment of something in excess of $61,000 allegedly due by the first respondent only. There is no claim now being pursued by any of the applicants against Mr. Parr. On the cross claim as it now stands, the only live issues between the respondents and the applicants are, firstly, the claim by the first respondent company for damages for the first applicant's refusal to reduce franchise fees payable by the first respondent allegedly in breach of the franchise agreement. Secondly, the allegation that the first applicant in breach of the franchise agreement sold franchised products to potential customers of the first respondent, moreover at prices lower than those at which it supplied the product to the first respondent, which conduct entitles the first respondent to damages from the first applicant. Finally, in breach of a term of the franchise agreement not precisely identified, the first applicant gave approval to franchisees Timothy and Janet Brown to relocate from their premises at Browns Plains to Coorparoo. Mr. Parr from the bar table informed me that, in effect, that enabled the Browns' store to sell the franchised product into the area upon which the first respondent relied for its trade in the franchised product. Damages are again sought by the first respondent from the first applicant in respect of that alleged breach.