Civic Video Pty Ltd v Paterson

[2016] WASCA 69

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Inducing breach of contract
3. › Elements of the tort
4. › Knowledge requirement
5. › Whether reckless indifference or wilful blindness established
6. › Whether trial judge's findings of fact open on the evidence
1. Appeal
2. › Appeals from findings of fact
3. › Credibility-based findings
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Whether findings glaringly improbable or inconsistent with incontrovertible facts
1. Contract
2. › Breach of franchise agreement
3. › Damages
4. › Loss of bargain damages versus loss of chance
5. › Whether inability of defaulting party to perform relevant to assessment of damages
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Calderbank offers
4. › Joint offer by multiple respondents
5. › Whether offeree worse off by rejecting offer
6. › Proper comparison where claims against multiple respondents

Quick Take

Where a franchisee breaches a franchise agreement by selling the business without consent, the franchisor is entitled to loss of bargain damages assessed on the basis of hypothetical performance for the balance of the term, and the franchisee's financial inability to continue performing is not relevant to the assessment of damages. When assessing whether a plaintiff is worse off for rejecting a joint Calderbank offer from multiple respondents, the plaintiff's position must be considered separately against each respondent, not by reference to the overall position across all respondents.