Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Luce Optical v Budget Specs (Franchising) [2005] FCA 1486 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTION – Application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the exercise of a power of termination – construction of two franchise agreements – exercise of powers of inspection and examination upon reasonable notice – consideration of implied term to act in good faith, fairly and reasonably in the exercise of a power – consideration of whether particular obligation expression of a proper construction of the agreement or an incident of the implied duty of good faith – consideration of whether reliance upon an independent audit report precluded by breach of franchise agreement or breach of implied duty – consideration of serious question and balance of convenience. Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meets Pty Ltd [2001] 208 CLR 119 at 217 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 at 153 Legione v Hateley (1982–1983) 152 CLR 406 at 444 Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 at 267-269 Alcatel Australia v Scarcella & Ors (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 at 363-369 Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd (2001) NSWCA 187 at paras. [141] to [187] Vodafone Pacific Ltd & Ors v Mobile Innovations Ltd [2004] NSWCA 15 at paras. [183] to [216] Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-741 at paras. [21] to [31] Overlook v Foxtel [2002] NSWSC 17 at paras. [54] to [76] Far Horizons Pty Ltd v McDonalds Australia Pty Ltd (2000) VSC 310 at paras. [119] to [130] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1994–1995) 183 CLR 10 at page 30 Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 447–453 Breen v Williams (1995–1996) 186 CLR 71 at pages 102-103 Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 126 at paras. [35] and [36] Service Station Association Limited v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Limited (1993) 45 FCR 84 at pages 91-99 Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Air Services Australia (1997) 76 FCR 151 at pages 191-193 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-755 Garry Rogers Motors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41–703 at paras. [34] to [39] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1365 Pacific Brand Sport & Leisure Pty Ltd v Underworks Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 288 at paras. [61] – [66] Bingham & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 402 at paras. [110] to [116] Derry v Peek (1889) LR 14 App. Cas. 337
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate