Sureslim Australia v Mansell

In the matter of Sureslim Australia v Mansell, the plaintiff, Sureslim Australia, alleged that the defendants, Mansell and his company, had breached their franchise agreement by failing to pay the requisite franchise fee. Additionally, Sureslim Australia sought to enforce a restraint of trade clause that would prevent the defendants from competing with the franchise business. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the restraint of trade clause was excessively broad and contravened public policy. They also contended that Sureslim Australia had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable behaviour under the Trade Practices Act.

The court was required to determine whether the non-payment of the franchise fee constituted a breach of the franchise agreement. The court was also tasked with evaluating the validity of the restraint of trade clause and whether it should be enforced. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Sureslim Australia's alleged conduct was misleading and deceptive under the Trade Practices Act and whether the conduct was unconscionable.

The court found that the defendants had indeed breached the franchise agreement by failing to pay the franchise fee. It was held that the restraint of trade clause was not excessively broad and was therefore enforceable. The court ruled that Sureslim Australia had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable behaviour under the Trade Practices Act. As a result, the court restrained the defendants from setting up and operating a business in competition with the franchise business.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Sureslim Australia and granted an injunction against the defendants from engaging in competitive activities. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding franchise fee and interest.