IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Sydney No S175 of 2002
B e t w e e n -
BURGER KING CORPORATION
Appellant
and
HUNGRY JACK’S PTY LIMITED
Respondent
Pronouncement of Consent Orders
GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2002, AT 10.24 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
GLEESON CJ: In this matter the parties have consented to orders. In accordance with that consent, the order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed.
AT 10.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
- AGLC
- Burger King v Hungry Jack's [2002] HCATrans 472
- Case
- [2002] HCATrans 472
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court was required to determine whether Burger King had breached its contractual obligations to Hungry Jack's by refusing to approve its proposed restaurant development plans. Central to this was the interpretation of clauses within the franchise agreement that governed the approval process for new outlets, including the standard of reasonableness expected of Burger King in its decision-making. The court also had to consider the implications of any such breach on the parties' respective rights and obligations under the contract.
The High Court found that Burger King had breached the franchise agreement. The court reasoned that Burger King's refusal to approve Hungry Jack's development plans was not based on reasonable grounds as required by the contract. It was held that the approval process was not intended to allow Burger King to arbitrarily withhold consent or to act in a manner that would stifle the development of the franchise in Australia, which was a primary objective of the agreement. The court applied principles of contract law, emphasizing the implied duty of good faith and the requirement for contractual discretion to be exercised reasonably and for a proper purpose.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the appeal in part, finding that Burger King had breached the agreement. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for further consideration of the appropriate remedies.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.