Horesh v Sephardi Association of Victoria (No. 2)

The appellant, Horesh, and the respondent, the Sephardi Association of Victoria, were involved in a dispute regarding the naming rights over a building. The appellant claimed that the respondent had infringed on his naming rights by displaying an external sign inconsistent with his rights. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the lower court's decision. The primary legal issues in this case were the extent of the appropriate remedy for the breach of contract and the infringement of the appellant's naming rights.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to the removal of the current sign, but a prescriptive order regarding the replacement sign was not appropriate. The court also determined that it was inappropriate to grant the appellant the liberty to apply for further orders. The court held that the respondent had indeed breached the appellant's naming rights by displaying an external sign inconsistent with his rights. However, the court declined to grant the appellant the relief he sought in terms of a prescriptive order for a replacement sign, considering it an inappropriate remedy in this case. The court also found that neither party was wholly successful, and therefore, costs were to be borne by the parties themselves, with the respondent paying 50% of the appellant's costs of appeal.

In conclusion, the court found that the respondent had breached the appellant's naming rights but declined to grant a prescriptive order for a replacement sign. The court also found that neither party was wholly successful, resulting in both parties bearing their own costs of the trial, with the respondent paying 50% of the appellant's costs of appeal. This case highlights the importance of respecting naming rights and the limitations of prescriptive orders in cases of breach of contract and infringement of such rights.