Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Notice of termination gave detailed reasons for termination of motor distribution contracts
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by the plaintiff and upholds decision of the High Court refusing to grant a declaration that motor distribution contracts between the parties had not been terminated, were still subsisting, and awarding nominal damages for misrepresentation, and allows cross-appeal by the defendant and overturns decision of the High Court that it had failed to comply with the obligation to give detailed, objective and transparent reasons for terminating the contracts and the finding that its agent misrepresented the plans of the respondent to the appellant, on the grounds that: (a) the notice of termination gave detailed, objective and transparent reasons for the termination of the appellant’s contracts, and consequently the contracts were validly terminated; (b) once the trial judge had determined that the respondent did not purport to terminate the agreements for prohibited anti-competitive reasons, he had no further role in the assessment of the validity of the notice; (c) the trial judge erred in law when he held that the respondent was liable to reimburse the appellant the expenditure he incurred in carrying out works to his premises following the meeting in July 2009; and (d) the appellant did not establish that he acted to his detriment in relying upon any alleged misrepresentation by any agent of the respondent and, accordingly, is not entitled to recover damages from the respondent for same.
Costello J (nem diss): Breach of contract - the case concerned the purported termination of motor distribution contracts between the respondent and the appellant - whether the contracts were validly terminated - the defendant terminated three contracts between the parties and gave 24 months notice of termination - the plaintiff appealed the decision of the High Court to refuse to give a declaration that the contracts were, and remained, valid and binding between the parties, the award of nominal damages for breach of the contracts, the failure to find other instances of alleged misrepresentation and the failure to award him his costs of the proceedings - the defendant cross-appealed the trial judge’s finding that it had failed to comply with the obligation to give detailed, objective and transparent reasons for terminating the contracts, the finding that its agent misrepresented the plans of the respondent to the appellant and the order as to costs - whether the contracts were validly terminated - whether the reason for terminating the contract was anti-competitive - misrepresentation - appeal dismissed - cross-appeal allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
