News

MST Lawyers Recognised In Who’s Who Legal

The international publication Who’s Who Legal, through independent research and peer review, has recognised MST Lawyers and four of its lawyers as the stand out firm in Australia in franchising law.

Injuncting A Wind Up Application – Abuse Of Process?

Non-compliance with a statutory demand is the most common way to prove insolvency.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in A G Coombs Pty Ltd v M & V Consultants Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 468 illustrates the issues faced by the recipient of a statutory demand who disputed the debt on which the demand was based. While it was argued that they were unquestionably solvent, the recipient failed to make an application to have the statutory demand set aside within the 21-day time limit.

Can Liquidators Delay Service of Proceedings while trying to find Litigation Funding?

The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Choy v Tiaro Coal Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWCA 205 serves as a reminder to liquidators of the need to follow court rules in regards to service. It discusses the operation of section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and when the Courts will exercise their discretion to invalidate a step of the proceedings.

Good Faith, Good Business: Lessons From The Pizza Hut Litigation

The requirement to act in good faith is an important term implied by law into contracts and franchise agreements. What exactly the term requires and how far it extends has been the subject of many judicial decisions over the past two decades. The requirement that a franchisor exercises its discretions under a franchise agreement reasonably, and in good faith was given a thorough review in a recent Full Federal Court case.

The case concerned the franchisor of the Pizza Hut franchise, Yum and 190 of the 200 independent franchisees in respect of a strategy to increase market share by reducing prices and simplifying the product offering. The case illustrates the Court’s approach to determining whether the implied term has been breached, and is indicative of the expectations of those exercising a discretion under a franchise agreement.