Re: B.H.C. NOMINEES (No. 49) PTY. LIMITED and CENTENARY INVESTMENTS PTY. LTD.
And: TOTAL AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Nos. G85 and 86 of 1982
Administrative law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald J.
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchises - Application for interlocutory injunction - no franchise agreement - franchisee in breach of agreement - discretion to grant interim relief.
Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 sub-ss. 10(4)(a); 21(2) and (4).
HEARING
BRISBANE
#DATE 10:8:1982
ORDER
1. The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents costs including reserved costs to be taxed.
JUDGE1
In respect of applications G85 and G86 of 1982 by B.H.C. Nominees (No. 49) Pty Limited and Centenary Investments Pty Ltd., on the applicant's own evidence as it stands for present purposes, I am satisfied that there is no franchise agreement to which the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 applies.
In the circumstances, no question strictly arises in connection with s.10 sub-s. 4(a) of that Act. But, were I of the opinion that there are franchise agreements, I would find a persistent failure or refusal to make payment with respect to motor fuel supplied in accordance with the arrangements entered into between the parties.
I would also, in the exercise of my discretion under sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s.21 of the Act, in any event decline to order supply by the respondent to either applicant except on the basis which has been offered by the respondent, which would ensure payments to the respondent which is already a large creditor. I note that an undertaking as to damages by either applicant would be worthless if it were later found that there were insufficient funds to pay for fuel supplied.
The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed in each case, and in each case the applicant must pay the costs, including any reserved costs, of the respondent to be taxed.
- AGLC
- B.H.C. Nominees (No 49) Pty Ltd v Total Aust Ltd & Anor [1982] FCA 178
- Case
- [1982] FCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from selling the petrol station in question, despite the absence of a formal franchise agreement. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant could claim interim relief given that the franchisee was already in breach of their agreement. The core question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant interim relief in these circumstances.
In evaluating the matter, the court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently strong case for the grant of interlocutory relief. The absence of a formal franchise agreement and the fact that the franchisee was already in breach of their agreement were significant factors. The court held that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for interim relief, particularly given the potential for prejudice to the respondents if the injunction were to be granted. Consequently, the application for interlocutory relief was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including reserved costs to be taxed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents costs including reserved costs to be taxed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.