Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Limited

This is an appeal by Burger King Corporation (BKC) from a decision of Rolfe J, in which his Honour awarded damages in the sum of $70,845,428 to Hungry Jack’s Pty Limited (HJPL) for BKC’s wrongful termination of a 1990 agreement granting HJPL a non-exclusive right to develop and to be franchised to operate Burger King Restaurants in Australia, which it did under the brand name “Hungry Jack’s” .

Before dealing with the issues on the appeal a brief introduction to the corporate entities, the principal personalities and the background relationship between the parties is required.

A detailed review of the facts is contained in a schedule to the judgment (the Schedule of Facts) and is hereby incorporated in the judgment. The Schedule of Facts also includes such analysis and comment on the facts as was considered appropriate. However, the analysis of the facts as relevant to the issues on the appeal is contained herein. The Parties

BKC conducts, worldwide, a franchised fast food system. It is currently the second largest of such fast food chains in the world, after McDonalds. It has nearly 9,000 restaurants worldwide which it conducts primarily through a uniform franchise system. It also operates a small proportion of restaurants itself.

BKC entered the Australian market in the early 1970’s, after being approached to do so by Jack Cowin, the principal of HJPL. HJPL is a company within the Competitive Foods Group of companies, which operates a number of fast food restaurant outlets, including Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino’s Pizza. It also operates five food manufacturing plants which sell both to the domestic and export market. The interests in the group are owned as to 55.5% by companies controlled by the chairman of the group, Jack Cowin, and the balance by overseas companies.

HJPL’s first formal franchise agreement with BKC was entered into on 1 June 1973, although by that time there were already 14 restaurants operating under the name Hungry Jack’s using the BKC system and trademarks. The franchise agreement permitted the continued operation of the system under the Hungry Jack’s banner. A franchise agreement was required for each store opened by HJPL.

Shell Oil Company (Shell) was initially a party to the proceedings, but proceedings between it and HJPL settled. However, Shell has remained a relevant entity in the proceedings because it is alleged by HJPL that, as a result of dealings between Shell and BKC to set up Burger King outlets in Shell service stations to the exclusion of HJPL, BKC breached its fiduciary duty to HJPL. This remains an issue on the appeal to the extent that BKC contends that no fiduciary duty was owed in the circumstances. It concedes that if there was such a duty it was in breach. Principal Personalities: BKC

At the time when the issues between the parties first arose, Jim Adamson was the Chief Executive Officer of BKC. By mid 1995 he had been replaced by Candido Rodriguez. However, the CEO played little part in the conduct and transactions relevant to these proceedings. The major participants were various vice-presidents and executives in BKC’s administrative and legal departments.

David Fitzjohn (Fitzjohn) was a Senior Vice President. Between August 1993 and April 1994 he was the interim Managing Director, Asia-Pacific division. From 1994 onwards he was Senior Vice President, World Wide Development, retaining responsibilities for Australia.

Ray Miolla (Miolla) was Regional Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of BKC. From 1995 until September 1997, he was chief legal counsel for BKC’s franchising activities worldwide (excluding Europe). Miolla was an experienced legal practitioner. He was a member of the International Franchise Association and the American Bar Association’s franchise section. Prior to joining BKC he had been a partner in a major US law firm in Boston. He was familiar with the obligations of confidence owed by employees to employers. In particular, he understood that a wrongful disclosure of information by an employee could amount to a breach of legal obligation owed by that employee to an employer.

“Colt” Hothorn (Hothorn) was Vice President and General Manager, Development International and, from 1994, onwards was responsible for development in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific including Australia.

Roy Blauer (Blauer) was Senior Vice President of Operations for the USA and Vice President responsible for operations in Australia. He held those positions from February 1994 until 1996.

Marc Gough (Gough) was Director of Marketing for Australia and the Asia-Pacific region from March 1995 onwards.

Will Gooden (Gooden) was the Finance Director during the entire period relevant to the proceedings.

Stephanie Driscoll (Driscoll) was a member of BKC’s finance department between April 1993 and December 1996. She was a member of BKC’s franchisee financial analysis group and reported directly to Gooden.

Tony Power (Power) was BKC’s Development Manager in Australia from July 1994.

Terry Horowitz (Horowitz) was Franchise Manager, Australia and New Zealand from May 1994 until January 1997. He was based in Australia. Principal Personalities: HJPL

John James “Jack” Cowin (Cowin) was the Chairman and Managing Director of Competitive Foods Australia Pty Limited (Competitive Foods) and HJPL from 1969.

Jim Montgomery (Montgomery) was the National Development Manager of HJPL.

Stephen McCarthy (McCarthy) was the Franchise Recruitment and Development Manager for New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory from 1992.

John Mazzone (Mazzone) was HJPL’s Development Manager in Victoria and also assisted Montgomery on national development matters.

Malcolm Green (Green) was the Operations Manager for HJPL from July 1994. Prior to that he had been the Western Australian state manager.

John Butler (Butler) was a Director of and Company Secretary for HJPL.

Warren Honkey (Honkey) was HJPL’s Franchise Operations Manager.

James Wilson (Wilson) was HJPL’s National Marketing Manager. Overview of Contractual Arrangements Between the Parties

On 1 June 1986, after a period of disputation, BKC and HJPL entered into an agreement (the 1986 Agreement), whereby HJPL was granted a non-exclusive right to develop and to be franchised to operate Burger King Restaurants in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The other states and territories of Australia were not included in the grant: Article I. The Agreement provided for three stages of development within specified time frames. Strict adherence to the development schedule was made of the essence of the agreement.

However, further disputes arose between the parties giving rise to a new development agreement (the 1989 Agreement) stated to be “effective as of 4 August 1989” . This agreement differed in one significant respect from its predecessor, in that, under Article I, HJPL was granted the exclusive right to develop and to be franchised to operate Burger King restaurants throughout “all of the states and territories comprising the entire country of Australia” .

The development schedule in the 1989 Agreement also provided for staged development but on a more intense scale than required by the 1986 Agreement. Strict adherence to the development schedule at each stage was required and was stated to be of “the essence of [the] Agreement” .

The 1989 Agreement did not effectively resolve the parties’ then difficulties and in late 1990 four agreements (the 1990 Agreements) were entered into in total settlement of the dispute. The agreements, each made 13 November 1990, were: (i) The Settlement Agreement (ii) The Service Agreement (iii) The Registered User Agreement, and (iv) The Development Agreement. These proceedings principally arose out of BKC’s purported termination of the Development Agreement. Overview of Events Leading to Termination

The Development Agreement conferred upon HJPL the non-exclusive right to develop and to be franchised to operate Burger King restaurants in Australia. Under that Agreement HJPL was required, either by itself or through a third party franchisee, to develop and open for business a minimum of four new Burger King restaurants per year in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland: cl 2.1. The Development Agreement also provided for non-exclusive development rights in the other Australian states and territories.

Clause 4.1 of the Development Agreement required HJPL to obtain individual franchises for each restaurant developed under the Agreement. This involved complying with a number of procedures including entering into a further agreement, known as a Preliminary Agreement, which provided for conditional franchise approval in respect of nominated sites and to have certain approvals, namely operational, financial and legal approval at the time of application for a franchise agreement for a newly developed restaurant.

Notwithstanding that the 1990 Agreements were intended to be in settlement of the disputes then affecting the parties, it soon emerged that BKC was seriously reviewing its role in the Australian market with an eye to increasing its own direct participation. Its deliberations during this period included a consideration of buying out HJPL, either directly or through a third party, or entering into a joint venture, in which it would maintain overall control. As it was not part of HJPL’s corporate plan at that time to sell, it was obvious that tensions between the two were likely to develop.

From late 1991 until 1993 there were a series of disputes between the parties in respect of a wide range of issues including signage, trademarks, operational issues, new stores and third party franchisees. These culminated in BKC serving a Notice of Dispute upon HJPL on 19 November 1992 and a Notice of Default on 3 February 1993. These notices were the subject of continuing negotiation throughout 1993 and were either not pursued or were resolved.

1993 saw another phase of development in the relationship between BKC and HJPL. Commencing in about the middle of the year, there were discussions between BKC and Shell as to the feasibility of using Shell service station sites as Burger King outlets. The details of this development will be discussed later in these reasons. HJPL was advised of this development in February 1994. From March, HJPL was included in what became a tripartite test arrangement between BKC, Shell and HJPL.

In June 1994, BKC established a new corporate entity in Australia, Burger King Australia Limited. Blauer and Horowitz were appointed its directors. Power was appointed Development Manager. For the first time, BKC had operational staff in Australia. However, the principal decisions were still made by BKC in Miami.

In September 1994, the Shell proposal took a new turn when BKC and Shell commenced discussions to pursue a bipartite relationship which excluded HJPL. HJPL was not advised of this development until May 1995, by which time Shell had clearly decided to pursue its own relationship with BKC. These circumstances gave rise to the breach of fiduciary duty claim by HJPL.

In about March 1995, BKC replaced the Preliminary Agreement with a new Target Reservation Agreement (TRA). This introduced two significant changes. First, it levied a “non-refundable deposit” of US$10,000 for each new restaurant to be opened. Secondly, it overrode HJPL’s preferential rights under cl 7.1 of the Development Agreement.

In 1995, three further significant matters occurred in the BKC/HJPL relationship. BKC imposed a freeze on HJPL recruiting third party franchisees. It also withdrew financial and operational approval from HJPL. The effect of these actions was to impede HJPL’s development of new outlets. The impact of this was critical as HJPL was required under the Development Agreement to develop a minimum of four stores in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland each year.

Another issue developed significantly in 1995. Commencing in 1992 the initial terms of a number of original franchise agreements expired. By 1995, the initial terms for restaurants at Fulham, Strathpine, Claremont, Ipswich, Springwood, Balga, Barrack Street Perth, Beak House, Brisbane, Bunbury and Bull Creek had expired. These stores were referred to as “successor stores” and an agreement for a further term pursuant to the franchise agreement was referred to as a “successor agreement” . However, BKC did not in the first instance offer HJPL successor agreements. Rather, it offered a series of Extension Agreements. The Extension Agreements were a means whereby BKC extended the initial term of the franchise agreements for a period to enable capital improvements to be carried out before BKC granted a successor agreement. By the second half of 1995, BKC began to threaten that it would not issue any more Extension Agreements if the necessary work was not completed, and in that circumstance the stores would have to be closed.

As from 1 January 1996, BKC changed the terms of the Extension Agreement, so as to provide that there would be no further extension, except in its discretion, and HJPL waived and released BKC from any claim that BKC had not provided a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements for obtaining a renewal of the franchise. A number of these new forms of agreement were entered into in 1996. HJPL contends, inter alia, that it entered into them under a mistake. This issue became known in the proceedings as the Successor Store issue.

By two separate notices, each dated 18 November 1996, BKC purported to terminate the Development Agreement for breach. The first notice (the Shorter Notice) particularised HJPL’s failure to develop new restaurants as required by cl 2.1 as the breach giving rise to the right to terminate. The second notice (the Longer Notice) alleged a number of breaches relating to a sunglass promotion campaign, advertising without approval and improper trademark use.

A third notice was given on 8 September 1997 (the 1997 Notice of Termination) after the commencement of proceedings against the possibility that the earlier notices were held to be invalid.

At the time the Shorter and Longer Notices were given, HJPL was operating 148 Hungry Jack’s restaurants and operating another two restaurants controlled by Shell on service station sites. Eighteen Hungry Jack’s restaurants were operated by third party franchisees and HJPL provided training and other services to those restaurants. Over the six year period from November 1990 until November 1996, HJPL had paid royalties to BKC exceeding $20 million.

HJPL challenges the validity of each notice of termination. It also alleges that, at the time of issue of the notices, BKC was itself in breach of the Development Agreement and, therefore, not entitled to give any Notice of Termination. The breaches alleged by HJPL arose out of the third party freeze and the alleged wrongful withdrawal of financial and operational approval.

HJPL was substantially successful in the proceedings and was awarded damages for delay in opening company-owned restaurants, for loss of opportunity to introduce third party franchisees, and for equitable compensation for the loss of service royalties for restaurants opened at seven Shell service stations and for the loss sustained by HJPL as a result of three Shell restaurants being opened in the near vicinity of existing Hungry Jack’s restaurants. This last head of damages was referred to in the proceedings as the “cannibalisation claim” . In addition to the challenges on liability, BKC challenges his Honour’s quantification of the damages.

Rolfe J also ordered that the Extension Agreements for Fulham, Springwood, Strathpine, Claremont, Ipswich, Balga and Barrack Street and a form of agreement, called a Successor Agreement, for Springwood, Strathpine, Claremont and Ipswich be set aside. He further ordered that BKC offer to HJPL a new franchise agreement for a further term of 15 years for those seven stores, as well as for the restaurants at Bunbury, Beak House Brisbane and Bull Creek. BKC offered the new franchise agreements and on 10 February 2000 new agreements were entered into in respect of all stores but Barrack Street. A distinct issue had arisen in respect of that store and there was a separate hearing in relation to it. HJPL relocated this store to Murray Street and the proceedings in respect of that store became known by that name. HJPL was successful in those proceedings and his Honour extended the time previously ordered to offer a new franchise agreement in respect of that store. That new franchise agreement was entered into on 21 August 2000.

HJPL contends that even if BKC is successful on the successor store issues it cannot now have the renewed franchise agreements set aside. Put shortly, it was said that those agreements, having been entered into pursuant to the Court’s orders, stand according to their terms and any challenge on this point is moot. Introduction to Issues on Appeal

Some of the issues on the appeal have been referred to in passing. However, as a point of reference to these reasons, we identify below the issues in the case in the order we deal with them in the judgment. The Issues (i) the validity of the Shorter Notice of Termination; and in particular - (a) whether, upon its proper construction, HJPL was in breach of the obligation to develop restaurants in accordance with cl 2.1 of the Development Agreement; (b) whether, if HJPL was in breach, it was necessary for BKC, pursuant to cl 15.2 of the Development Agreement, to give a 30 day notice to cure any breach before a Notice of Termination could be given for breach of cl 2.1; (ii) whether BKC had, in any event, as at the date of the Shorter Notice, a right to terminate at common law on the basis that cl 2.1 was a condition of the Development Agreement which required strict compliance with the development schedule; (iii) whether there were implied terms of good faith and reasonableness in the Development Agreement; (iv) whether, if there were implied terms of good faith and reasonableness, there was breach of those terms and of the implied term of co-operation (the implication of which was not disputed) because of the conduct of BKC in - (a) imposing a third party freeze on HJPL by refusing to permit HJPL to recruit new third party franchisees; (b) withholding financial disapproval (the financial disapproval issue); (c) withholding operational approval (the operational disapproval issue); (v) the validity of the Longer Notice of Termination, and in particular - (a) whether, assuming there was a breach of cl 6.5 of the Development Agreement which required, in brief, that HJPL comply with all applicable statutory regulations and BKC’s advertising standards, and submit all advertising to BKC for prior approval, BKC was entitled to terminate under cl 15.1; (b) if BKC was entitled to terminate under cl 15.1, whether it was first required to give a 30 day notice to cure under cl 15.2; (c) whether there was, in fact, a breach of cl 6.5; The particular factual matters in issue were a sunglasses promotion, trade mark breaches and advertising breaches; (vi) the Successor Store issue, and in particular - (a) whether his Honour’s order that BKC enter into franchise agreements for a further term of 15 years for Hungry Jack’s restaurants at Fulham, Springwood, Strathpine, Claremont, Ipswich, Balga, Barrack Street Perth, Bunbury, Beak House Brisbane and Bull Creek can now be challenged (‘the moot point issue’); (b) whether HJPL was acting under a mistake when entering into the Extension Agreements and the agreements entered into in 1996 (called Successor Agreements but which were in fact conditional agreements prior to entry into a franchise agreement for the renewed term); (c) whether the failure of BKC to advise HJPL of Montgomery’s actions gave rise to accessory liability; (d) the construction of cl IX(A) of the franchise agreement; (vii) the Murray Street appeal; (viii) the validity of the 1997 Notice of Termination: this issue involves the consideration of alleged trade mark breaches as well as the questions which arise under the successor store issue; (ix) the Shell issue, to which reference has already been made; (x) damages, and in particular whether HJPL is entitled to - (a) damages for delay in opening company owned restaurants; (b) damages for loss of opportunity to introduce third party franchisees; (c) equitable compensation for loss of service royalties; (d) damages for the cannibalisation claims; (e) the amount of such damages. THE 1990 AGREEMENTS The Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Agreement might be described as the umbrella agreement. It recited that there had been differences between the parties which they had agreed to resolve by entry into the 1990 Agreements. Schedule 3 catalogued the “Matters in Dispute” . The substantive provisions of the Settlement Agreement terminated certain of the existing agreements, in particular the 1986 Agreement. It specified which other agreements, including existing franchise agreements, remained on foot and approved the then existing unapproved restaurants and sites. It also provided that it was agreed that the 1989 Agreement was not to be binding on the parties. The Development Agreement

The Development Agreement replaced the 1986 Agreement, making provision for the future development of Burger King restaurants in Australia by HJPL: Recital F. It both conferred a right to and imposed an obligation on HJPL to develop Burger King restaurants. It was intended that this would be done under the Hungry Jack’s banner. Thus by cl 1 HJPL was granted: “… a non-exclusive right to develop and, subject to the full satisfaction of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to be franchised to operate Burger King Restaurants in Australia.”

Clause 2 imposed the obligation on HJPL to develop Burger King restaurants: “2. Development Schedule 2.1 HUNGRY JACK’S or any BKC franchisee introduced by HUNGRY JACK’S to BKC shall develop and open for business in Australia in accordance with the franchise and site approval procedures described in this Agreement a minimum of four (4) new Burger King Restaurants per annum commencing on 12 November 1990 in the area comprising Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland (‘the Development Schedule’). 2.2 If delay in meeting the Development Schedule is caused by acts of God, labor strikes, shortage of building supplies or other unforeseeable events beyond the reasonable control of HUNGRY JACK’S, then BKC after an independent examination of the underlying facts will not unreasonably withhold its consent to a reasonable extension of time to meet the Development Schedule.”

We will refer to the number of restaurants to be developed under cl 2.1 as the development schedule and the three states in which development was required under the clause as the development states.

A central issue in the proceedings is whether cl 2.1 was an essential term so as to give rise to a common law right of termination. The terms of cl 3, and 3.2 in particular, are relevant to this question.

Clause 3 provided for a five year term with provision for three terms of renewal as follows: “3. TERM 3.1 The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years commencing on 13 November 1990. 3.2 Upon expiration of that term, provided that HUNGRY JACK’S shall have opened 20 (20) Burger King Restaurants during the previous five (5) years (with a minimum of two (2) restaurants per annum) in the area comprising Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland in accordance with the franchise and site approval procedures described in this Agreement, HUNGRY JACK’S shall have the right to renew this Agreement upon the same terms for a further period of five (5) years, at the expiration of which, subject to the same proviso, HUNGRY JACK’S shall have the right to renew this Agreement upon the same terms for a further period of five (5) years, at the expiration of which, subject to the same proviso, HUNGRY JACK’S shall have the right to renew this Agreement upon the same terms for a further period of five (5) years.”

Clause 4 specified the procedures and conditions necessary for HJPL to be entitled to be franchised in respect of each restaurant developed under the Development Agreement. Its terms and their proper construction are at the core of the dispute between the parties. Clause 4 provided: “4. DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE 4.1 This Agreement does not constitute a franchise for the operation of a Burger King Restaurant but is intended by the parties to set forth the terms and conditions which, if fully satisfied, would entitle HUNGRY JACK’S to individual franchises for each restaurant to be developed under this Agreement. HUNGRY JACK’S must apply for and obtain franchise and site approval from BKC for each restaurant to be established pursuant to this Agreement through BKC’s standard franchise and site approval procedures, including, without limitation, submitting the then current Multiple Franchise Application, Management Committee Form, Capitalization Plan and Preliminary Agreement. As a condition to the granting of a Franchise Approval, HUNGRY JACK’S must have, in the sole discretion of BKC, operational, financial and legal approval at the time of application for a franchise. In this Agreement the terms operation, financial and legal mean: (a) Operational HUNGRY JACK’S conducts each of its Burger King Restaurants in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the applicable Franchise Agreements, and the standards, specifications and procedures specified in the volumes comprising the Manual of Operating Data, as amended, including the maintenance of interior and exterior of the restaurants so as to reflect an acceptable Burger King image. HUNGRY JACK’S understands that changes in said standards, specifications and procedures may become necessary from time to time. HUNGRY JACK’S agrees to accept, as reasonable, said changes and HUNGRY JACK’S further agrees that it is within the sole discretion of BKC to make such changes. (b) Financial HUNGRY JACK’S has performed and is faithfully performing all terms and conditions under each individual Franchise Agreement issued, and is not in default of any money obligations owed by HUNGRY JACK’S to BKC. HUNGRY JACK’S acknowledges and agrees that it is vital to BKC’s interests that a franchisee be financially sound to avoid a business failure affecting the reputation and good name of the Burger King marks. (c) Legal HUNGRY JACK’S has promptly submitted to BKC all information and documents reasonably requested by BKC prior to and as a basis for the issuance and consummation of individual franchises, has taken additional action requested from time to time and is in compliance with all obligations under all agreements with BKC. 4.2 Failure to meet operational, financial or legal standards shall constitute grounds for refusing to grant or withdrawing a franchise approval and shall not extend, modify or reduce the development requirements of Clause 2.”

If and when franchise approval was obtained under cl 4, HJPL was then required to obtain site approval: cl 5. Site approval was a prerequisite to the grant of authorisation to construct a restaurant at a particular location.

Once site approval was obtained, HJPL was solely responsible for constructing the restaurant, which was to be “constructed, equipped and furnished with then current BKC approved plans and specifications” : cl 5.2(a).

Clause 6 contained a variety of provisions relating to fees and franchise agreements. Relevant to the issues on appeal are the terms of cl 6.5. It provided: “6.5 HUNGRY JACK’S agrees to adhere to all applicable statutory regulations and to BKC’s advertising, sales promotion and public relations standards and all advertisements and other materials published circulated or exhibited shall first be approved by BKC. FRANCHISEE agrees to remove or discontinue immediately the use of any objectionable advertising material upon receipt of BKC’s notice; BKC or its authorized agent may at all reasonable times enter the premises to remove and destroy objectionable material without compensation to FRANCHISEE.”

Clause 7 made provision, first for HJPL to introduce third party franchisees to BKC to operate under the HJPL banner: cls 7.1 and 7.2; and secondly, for BKC to develop restaurants either directly or through third party franchisees: cl 7.3.

Any third party franchisee introduced under cl 7.1 was subject to the same approval procedures as applied to HJPL under cl 4.1, including having operational, financial and legal approval.

BKC’s right to develop or franchise restaurants in the development states was conditional upon HJPL’s prior approval provided HJPL was up to date with the development schedule: cl 7.3.

Clause 7.3 is also relevant to the question of whether cl 2.1 is an essential term of the agreement. It provided: “7.3 Burger King may operate its own restaurants anywhere in Australia and may franchise third parties anywhere in Australia save that in the states of Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland if HUNGRY JACK’S is in compliance with the Development Schedule, the prior approval of HUNGRY JACK’S for the operation of any such restaurant must be obtained. Such approval may be withheld only if a Burger King Restaurant at that location would be likely substantially adversely to affect sales at another existing location or at a location for which an application for approval has been formally lodged with BKC. In the event of disagreement the question of likely substantial adverse effect shall be resolved in the same manner as under Clause 7.1.”

Clause 8 makes provision in respect of franchise fees for sites required to be developed by cl 2.1. In effect it gives HJPL a development incentive by providing, first, for the waiver of the franchise fee for each restaurant developed in accordance with the development schedule, and secondly, a further period of a year to make good the failure to comply with the development schedule. Its terms are relevant to the construction of cl 2.1 and the question of whether there was a breach of that clause so as to give rise to a right of termination. Its terms were: “FRANCHISE FEES 8.1 Franchise fees payable by HUNGRY JACK’S in respect of restaurants operated by it shall be waived in any year commencing on 12 November so long as HUNGRY JACK’S adheres to the Development Schedule in that year. Any failure to adhere to the Development Schedule shall attract a liability to pay a franchise fee in respect of each restaurant required to be but not opened under the Development Schedule. Such franchise fees shall be paid at the end of the year following the failure, but not if such failure is made good by that time.

The franchise fee was a once only payment in respect of each restaurant.

Royalties were payable under each franchise agreement. Clause 9 of the Development Agreement provided for a reduction of the amount of royalty by half a percent in each of two situations: (i) if HJPL provided services in accordance with the provisions of the Service Agreement to itself, to third party franchisees, BKC restaurants and franchisees introduced by BKC: cl 9.1(a); (ii) for each HJPL restaurant which was “in compliance with BKC’s menu and brand image standards as specified in [the Development Agreement]” : cl 9.1(b).

Clause 9.3 provided: “9.3 Nothing in this Clause 9 shall limit BKC’s rights in relation to any breach by HUNGRY JACK’S of its obligations under this or any other agreement.”

The standards referred to in 9.1(b) were specified in cl 10. In relation to menu, HJPL was required at all times to serve BKC’s base menu in its restaurants: cl 10.2. There was also provision for the sale of additional BKC products (cl 10.2); the ingredients to be used (cl 10.4); and the sale of non-BKC products (cl 10.5). Clause 10.6 provided for “Brand Image” . It required HJPL to comply with BKC’s written standards as to signage, menu board and the “use of the Burger King marks” .

Clause 11 dealt with trade marks and trade names. Clause 11.3, amongst other requirements, specified: “11.3 … Use of the Burger King Logo shall also appear in all advertisements in form as approved by BKC. In all television advertisements, the Burger King Logo shall appear in the tag line or final frame of the commercials in a manner acceptable to BKC. Should HUNGRY JACK’S, having been notified by BKC that is in default under this provision, fail to remedy the default within three (3) weeks of such notification, BKC may, in addition to taking any other action that may be available to it, by its authorised representative take such steps as it considers necessary to remedy the default …”

Clause 11.4 required HJPL to enter into Registered User Agreements, in the form prescribed by BKC, authorising HJPL’s use of the Burger King marks. Pursuant to cl 11.5, HJPL was not permitted to use trademarks or trade names of BKC or any variation or abbreviation of marks or names without BKC’s prior authorisation.

Clause 12 was concerned with training and cl 13 with services available to the franchisee. Clause 14 was a dispute resolution clause.

Clause 15 provided for the right to terminate for default. It is one of the clauses which is critical to the determination of the issues between the parties, as BKC purported to terminate under its provisions on three separate occasions. It provided: “DEFAULT 15.1 The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute good cause for BKC, at its option and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies provided for hereunder or by law or equity, to terminate this Agreement. (a) HUNGRY JACK’S fails to obtain site approval from BKC prior to the commencement of construction at a particular location. (b) HUNGRY JACK’S fails at any time to meet and satisfy fully the operational, financial and legal requirements set forth in Clause 4, whether for the purpose of seeking franchise approval or in the day-to-day operation of a Burger King Restaurant. (c) HUNGRY JACK’S assigns, encumbers, transfers or otherwise disposes of, or attempts to assign, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement in whole or in part, or of any Franchise Agreement other than in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. (d) HUNGRY JACK’S fails to comply with any of the other terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement, any Franchise Agreement, or any other obligation owed to BKC. (e) HUNGRY JACK’S seeks any type of relief under the provisions of a bankruptcy or insolvency law; or any person files a petition or application seeking to have HUNGRY JACK’S adjudicated a bankrupt and HUNGRY JACK’S does not take action to defend itself; or HUNGRY JACK’S admits in writing or upon oath the inability to pay debts as they mature; or a receiver (permanent or temporary) is appointed over any of HUNGRY JACK’S assets; or a final judgment is entered against HUNGRY JACK’S and is not paid or satisfied within thirty (30) days. (f) HUNGRY JACK’S fails to obtain or renew any licences or permits necessary for the performance of HUNGRY JACK’S obligations under this Agreement or any Franchise Agreement. (g) HUNGRY JACK’S opens a Burger King Restaurant without franchise approval, site approval, payment of any fees as required, or execution of all required agreements and documents. 15.2 In the case of any breach which is capable of being cured, BKC shall not terminate this Agreement unless and until HUNGRY JACK’S shall have failed to cure such breach within ten (10) days in the case of default of any obligation to pay money to BKC and within thirty (30) days in the case of any other breach after being notified by BKC of the nature of the default.”

Clause 16 provided: “TERMINATION 16.1 Upon termination of this Agreement, whether resulting from default or expiration of the term of this Agreement, HUNGRY JACK’S shall have no further rights under this Agreement, but this shall not affect then existing Franchise Agreements.”

Clause 19 contained a severability provision. It provided that if construction of any clause rendered it “unlawful, void, voidable or unenforceable” then a construction which rendered it valid was to be adopted. It also contained a provision neutralising the contra proferentem rule, providing: “The language of all provisions of this Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly against BKC or [HJPL].”

The Development Agreement was governed by the laws of New South Wales: cl 25.

The other provisions of the Development Agreement are not presently relevant. The Registered Users Agreement and the Service Agreement

Certain of the terms of the other 1990 Agreements are relevant to the issues on the appeal.

The Registered Users Agreement governed HJPL’s use of BKC’s trade marks. Clause 4 (a) required HJPL promptly: “[to] comply with all reasonable directions regarding the manner of use of the Trade Marks issued from time to time by [BKC].”

Clause 4 of the Service Agreement governed the arrangements relating to staff training and education. Under this agreement HJPL was required to provide training for its own staff, for its third party franchisees and such other franchisees as BKC nominated from time to time.

The Service Agreement contains a convenient reference to the amount of the franchise fee which was payable as at the time the 1990 Agreements were entered into - namely $US25,000. There was no evidence of any change in that fee during the period relevant to the proceedings. The Standard Franchise Agreement

A franchise agreement was required to be entered into for each store which was opened. BKC had a standard form of franchise agreement which was used worldwide. At the time HJPL entered into its early franchise agreements the standard from of the agreement was 15 years. Subsequently, BKC introduced a 20 year term.

Under the franchise agreement, a franchisee agreed to pay a monthly royalty, being a percentage of gross sales for use of BKC’s trademarks: cl VA; to take out and maintain a comprehensive and general liability policy: cl VII B and was responsible for all loss or damage and contractual liabilities to third persons arising out of the conduct of the franchised restaurants: cl VII B.

Clause IX of the standard form of franchise agreement provided for a once only renewal of the term as follows: “ OPTION AT END OF TERM Provided that Franchisee shall have substantially complied with all of the terms and conditions of this agreement and any other agreement between Franchisee and Company, and shall have substantially complied with the operating standards and criteria established for Burger King Restaurants, then at the expiration of the term hereof, Company will offer Franchisee the opportunity to remain a Franchisee hereunder for one additional period of fifteen (15) years, provided that: A. Franchisee shall agree to make such capital expenditures as may be reasonably required to renovate and modernize the restaurant buildings, premises, signs and equipment so as to reflect the then current image of Burger King Restaurants. B. Franchisee must have the right to remain in possession of the premises, or other premises acceptable to Company, for the new term. If Franchisee elects (or is required) to relocate, then Franchisee shall pay Company’s reasonable expenses in relocating, developing or evaluating new premises. Company shall not be required to extend its credit or resources in obtaining financing for premises or equipment. C. Franchisee shall execute a new Franchise Agreement on the form then being used by Company in the United States, which may differ from this Franchise Agreement as to royalty. The rate of royalty shall be re-negotiated at that time taking in account the Burger King rate of royalty then prevailing in other countries of the world. D. Franchisee shall give Company written notice of its desire to exercise its option to continue as a franchisee not less than fifteen (15) months prior to the expiration of the term of this agreement.”

Clause XI B provided that BKC and the franchisee were independent contractors and the franchisee was not an agent, partner, subsidiary or joint venturer with BKC.

Clause XII provided for events of default and termination.

Clause XIII was an Arbitration Clause. It made provision for the resolution of disputes both in respect of termination and in respect of “any other dispute” . Arbitration of a termination dispute was expressed to be mandatory: cl XIIIA. Arbitration of any other dispute was elective. The clause provided that in each instance the result of the arbitration was binding. Other Documents

It will be recalled that cl 4.1 of the Development Agreement required HJPL to submit, as part of the procedure for obtaining a franchise for a new restaurant, a Preliminary Agreement and a number of other Plans and Applications, including a Capitalisation Plan.

The Capitalisation Plan was one of BKC’s pro forma documents which sought basic information as to the amount of capital required and the details of the ownership of a proposed new restaurant. It also specified the financial analysis BKC would undertake in determining whether to grant a franchise for the proposed new restaurant. The financial analysis to be undertaken was as follows: “1. The financial evaluation to be completed by BKC will consist of the computation of the following key financial ratios for all existing and new restaurants: a. Cash Flow Primary focus will be on the fixed charge coverage ration. i.e., total fixed charges - cash flow. - total fixed charges. Fixed charges are royalty, ad fund contribution, rent, interest and principal payment on debt. Standard = 1.20:1 or higher. b. Debt as a % of Total Capital Standard = 35% or greater where all investors have given guaranties to BKC; or 50% or greater where some investors have not given BKC a guaranty. c. A review of current Personal Net Worth Statements for all Principals. The above ratios are the general standards that BKC uses to evaluate your financial strength. In considering your application, BKC will give consideration to other factors which include … any other factor which affects the Operating Entity’s financial strength. 2. BKC will also review the following: a. Accounts Payable Status If you are already franchisees, you must all be current on all accounts and notes payable to BKC at the time of application. This current status must have been maintained for a period of six (6) months prior to application.”

There was another document not expressly mentioned in cl 4.1 but which BKC appears to have required as part of the cl 4 procedure. That was also an Expansion Application and General Release. In that document, the applicant was required to advise such other interests as it had in non-BKC restaurant businesses (other than ownership of less than 5% of shares in publicly traded corporations). THE SHORTER NOTICE OF TERMINATION

In the Shorter Notice BKC purported to terminate the Development Agreement pursuant to its rights under cl 15.1(d).

The Notice stated: “NOTICE OF TERMINATION … ‘BKC’ … pursuant to the provisions of clause 15 of an agreement dated 13 November 1990 and made between it and … ‘HJPL’ (‘Development Agreement’) hereby gives notice to … ‘HJPL’ of the following breach by HJPL of the Development Agreement. … PARTICULARS OF BREACH Between 12 November, 1995 and 11 November, 1996, HJPL developed and opened only one (1) new Burger King® Restaurant in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, and BKC franchisees introduced by HJPL developed and opened no new Burger King® Restaurants in those three (3) states Accordingly BKC hereby terminates the Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of clause 15.1 of the Development Agreement. DATED 5 November 1996 BURGER KING CORPORATION”

The particulars of breach involved an allegation of non-compliance with cl 2.1 of the Development Agreement, which required HJPL or a third party franchisee to develop and open a minimum of four new restaurants in the development states in each year. There was no dispute that HJPL had not opened the required number of restaurants in the preceding 12 month period. HJPL had also conceded at trial that it could not do so within 30 days of the giving of the notice. This concession was relevant to the question of whether BKC were required, under cl 15.2 of the Development Agreement, to give a 30 day notice to cover a default of the Agreement.

HJPL contended that, upon a proper construction of the Development Agreement, there was in fact no breach of cl 2.1, so as to give rise to the right to terminate under cl 15, and that in any event the Notice was defective because no notice to cure the breach under cl 15.2 had been given prior to the giving of the Notice.

BKC contended that even if the Shorter Notice was defective, it retained its right to rescind under the general law. The success of that submission depends upon whether cl 2.1 was an essential term of the Development Agreement.

The trial judge determined these three issues against BKC. The Proper Construction of Clause 2.1

Under cl 2.1, HJPL was required to develop, either directly or through third party franchisees, and open for business, a total of at least four new restaurants a year in the development states. Read on its own, cl 2.1 is mandatory and unqualified, so that non-compliance might be thought to give rise to a right to terminate under cl 15.1(d). However, a number of other clauses deal with non-compliance. There are also significant qualifications to cl 2.1 found elsewhere in the Development Agreement.

First, cl 2.2 requires BKC to give a reasonable extension of time for compliance with the development schedule in the case of delay outside HJPL’s control.

Clauses 7.3 and 8.1 make provision for a failure to comply with the development schedule due to HJPL’s own fault, as opposed to delay outside its control. Both clauses impose a form of penalty on HJPL for non-compliance with cl 2.1. Clause 8.1 also provides a benefit in a way to which we will refer later.

Clause 7.3 placed a restriction on BKC’s right to develop restaurants, either directly or through its own franchisees in the development states. Under that clause BKC required HJPL’s consent (such consent only to be withheld if it would competitively interfere with an existing or proposed HJPL site). However, if HJPL was not in compliance with the development schedule the requirement to obtain HJPL’s consent was removed.

Clause 8.1 provided for the waiver of the franchise fee in respect of each restaurant operated by HJPL on the proviso that it adhered to the development schedule. However, a failure to adhere to the schedule did not immediately cause the franchise fee to become payable. It did not become payable until the end of a further period of 12 months and only if the failure to comply had not, by then, been made good.

HJPL submitted that cl 8.1 directly impacted upon the time provision in cl 2.1, in the sense that non-compliance with the development schedule did not amount to a breach giving a right to terminate under cl 15.1(d). That right did not arise until the end of a further 12 months. It was submitted that if it were otherwise, HJPL would be deprived of the right to make good the default as provided for by cl 8.1. Put another way, it was submitted that the effect of BKC’s construction would be that BKC could, at its option, render the benefits conferred on HJPL by cl 8.1 nugatory.

His Honour accepted that this was the proper construction of the agreement for essentially those reasons.

The operation of cl 8.1 and its effect on cl 2.1 has to be considered in the light of cl 15 itself. Clause 15.1 provided that the matters specified within its sub-paragraphs are events which “shall constitute good cause for BKC, at its option and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies provided hereunder … to terminate this agreement” (emphasis added). Clause 15.1(d) is wide and does not depend upon the event of breach being a breach of a condition or essential term of the Agreement. A breach of any term of the Development Agreement is sufficient to give rise to the right to terminate (subject to cl 15.2): see Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620.

The right to terminate is also expressed to be “without prejudice to any other rights or remedies provided hereunder” . One of BKC’s rights was to have the franchise fees reinstated if HJPL failed to comply with the development schedule. The right revived immediately upon non-compliance but was deferred for a period of 12 months in which HJPL was given the opportunity to make good the failure. HJPL contended that the effect of cl 8.1 was to extend the period for compliance with the development schedule.

BKC submitted that, when the operation of cl 8.1 is properly understood, it is apparent that it does not extend the time for compliance with the development schedule. Rather, it only operated for the benefit of HJPL if BKC elected not to terminate under cl 15.1(d). If it did elect to terminate, the Development Agreement and any ensuing benefit to HJPL would come to an end. It followed, on BKC’s submission that, if HJPL was to obtain the benefits of the Development Agreement, it had to remain on foot (a matter about which there could be no argument). Thus, on the construction for which BKC contended, the various clauses had their own independent operation. Clause 8.1 provided for one consequence of non-compliance and cl 7.3 provided another. The right to terminate under cl 15.1(d) (for example, because of a breach of cl 2.1) was a separate right, unaffected by the operation of the other clauses.

There is considerable force in BKC’s argument. In particular, it allows the phrase “without prejudice to any other rights or remedies provided hereunder” in cl 15.1 to operate according to its terms.

However, there are also difficulties with such a construction. In the first place, it involves a direct conflict with HJPL’s right under cl 3.2 to renew the Development Agreement at the end of the term, provided first that it had opened the full complement of restaurants during the term and had opened a minimum of two per year. Thus, by the commencement of the fifth year, HJPL may have opened 18 restaurants in the development states (at least two per year). To secure its right to a renewed term under cl 3.2, it would only need to open two restaurants in that year. However, to stave off the risk of termination at the end of the year it would be required to open four.

There are also practical difficulties which flow from BKC’s construction. For example, let it be assumed that HJPL had opened three restaurants in the 12 month period and was significantly advanced with the construction of the fourth and that that restaurant would be ready to be opened in three months time. Let it also be assumed that there were no other contractual impediments to completion and opening. Notwithstanding that development of the fourth restaurant would have involved considerable expenditure, BKC could exercise its right to terminate. Indeed on BKC’s construction, BKC could do so even after the completion of the work, and arguably may do so even after its opening, as there is no time limitation on the right to terminate. Another example is where HJPL failed to develop and open any restaurants in the year but had undertaken work to make good the non-compliance in the succeeding 12 months. BKC could still terminate, leaving HJPL with an obligation to pay franchise fees for the four restaurants and with no recourse to recover the cost of the work undertaken. There are other obvious variations.

The question is whether, notwithstanding these difficulties, the construction for which BKC contends, is correct. In A ustralian Broadcasting Commission v Australian Performing Right Association Limited (1973) 129 CLR 99 Gibbs J said at 109: “Of course the whole of the instrument has to be considered, since the meaning of any one part of it may be revealed by other parts, and the words of every clause must if possible be construed so as to render them all harmonious one with another. … On the other hand, if the language is open to two constructions, that will be preferred which will avoid consequences which appear to be capricious, unreasonable, inconvenient or unjust”

However, the construction for which BKC contends involves construing cl 2.1 and the right conferred by cl 15.1(d) in isolation from the other terms of the contract. If a failure to strictly comply with cl 2.1 gave rise to an event entitling BKC to terminate under cl 15, the effect would be to potentially abrogate the benefits conferred upon HJPL by cl 8.1. It is not a response to that to say that HJPL might have equitable remedies which it could pursue. The principles of construction, to which we have referred, do not relegate a party to those rights if there is a construction which otherwise allows the contract to operate harmoniously.

We have come to the conclusion that his Honour’s construction was correct and that upon its proper construction, there is no breach of cl 2.1 giving a right to terminate under cl 15.1(d) until the expiration of a further period of 12 months from the end of the yearly period specified in cl 2.1. Further support for this being the correct construction is found in cl 4.2 which provides that failure to obtain financial, operational or legal approval as required by cl 4.1 “shall not extend, modify or reduce the development requirements in cl 2” . There is no like provision in cl 8.1.

As BKC did not allow for that period in the Shorter Notice, it was ineffective to terminate the Development Agreement.

We would add only one further comment. Rolfe J considered that the first sentence of cl 19 assisted, but was not necessary for, the construction of cl 8.1 that he had reached, because, if BKC’s construction was correct, it would make cl 8.1 unenforceable. We do not consider this to be correct. HJPL’s rights under cl 8.1 might become unavailable if BKC was entitled to terminate as it contended. However, that is quite different to a provision being “unenforceable” which is the language of cl 19. Our disagreement with his Honour on this issue does not, however, affect our decision on the proper construction of cl 2.1. Clause 15.2: Whether 30 Day “Notice to Cure” was Required

Our finding that there was no breach of cl 2.1 at the time the Shorter Notice was given makes it unnecessary for us to determine whether, before a notice of termination could be given under cl 15.1(d) for this alleged breach, it was necessary to give a 30 day notice to cure under cl 15.2. However, as the matter was argued fully, we express our view on this issue briefly.

HJPL conceded for the purposes of this issue that it could not have opened the restaurants required even if a 30 day notice to cure had been given. BKC contended that, in that circumstance and upon the proper construction of cl 15.2, the giving of a 30 day notice to cure was not a pre-condition to the exercise of its right (assumed for the purposes of considering this issue) to terminate under cl 15.1(d). BKC also contended that it would have been nonsense for BKC to give a 30 day notice under cl 15.2 when HJPL had been operationally disapproved in November 1995 and remained operationally disapproved in November 1996. We leave aside for present purposes the question whether BKC was entitled to withhold operational approval at the time.

BKC also submitted that a failure to comply with the development schedule was not a breach capable of being cured as the period had come to an end and BKC had forever lost the benefit of those restaurants being opened at that time. In other words, “the temporal shortfall was ineradicable” .

HJPL submitted that cl 15.2 is concerned with a breach which is capable of cure, not one which was capable of being cured within a specified number of days. Rolfe J held this to be the proper construction of the clause, “the purpose of each clause [being] to give the party [in breach] the opportunity of curing the position for the future” . His Honour concluded: “A clause such as 15.2 is aimed at providing certainty. On one view the approach taken by Mr Oslington leads to uncertainty. It leaves open the argument, if no notice to cure is given, whether the breach was capable of being cured, such as to require the giving of a notice. However, if the notice is given and the breach is not cured the arguments are confined to whether there was a breach and whether it was cured within the time specified. On this basis the giving of notice is, in my opinion, a condition precedent to the right to terminate.”

His Honour considered that the construction which he found should be given to the clause was supported by authority: see Batson v De Carvalho (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 417; L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235; and Tricontinental Corporation Ltd v HJFI Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 689.

It is apparent from the above that there are two questions involved in the construction of cl 15.2. First, is the first part of the clause “any breach capable of being cured” qualified by the time provision which appears in the next part of the clause “BKC shall not terminate [the DA] unless and until [HJPL] shall have failed to cure such breach in thirty (30) days … of … breach after being notified by BKC of the nature of the fault” ? We do not believe it is. The clause is quite specific. If there is a breach capable of remedy, then a 30 day notice must be given.

That then leaves the second question. Is a breach, which is a once and for all breach, for example, failure to comply with a time provision, capable of being cured?

In L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd , Lord Reid, in construing a notice of termination clause in an agreement said at 249-250: “It appears to me that clause 11(a)(i) is intended to apply to all material breaches of the agreement which are capable of being remedied. The question then is what is meant in this context by the word “remedy” . It could mean obviate or nullify the effect of a breach so that any damage already done is in some way made good. Or it could mean cure so that matters are put right for the future. I think that the latter is the more natural meaning . The word is commonly used in connection with diseases or ailments and they would normally be said to be remedied if they were cured although no cure can remove the past effect or result of the disease before the cure took place. And in general it can only be in a rare case that any remedy of something that has gone wrong in the performance of a continuing positive obligation will, in addition to putting it right for the future, remove or nullify damage already incurred before the remedy was applied. To restrict the meaning of remedy to cases where all damage past and future can be put right would leave hardly any scope at all for this clause. On the other hand, there are cases where it would seem a misuse of language to say that a breach can be remedied.” (Emphasis added)

The statement of Sugerman J in Batson v de Carvalho , at 427, is to the same effect: “To ‘remedy’ a breach is not to perform the impossible task of wiping it out - of producing the same condition of affairs as if the breach had never occurred. It is to set things right for the future, and that may be done even though they have for some period not been right, and even though that may have caused some damage to the lessor. … A breach may be remedied … even though the time for doing the thing under the covenant may have passed …”

In Tricontinental Corporation v HDFI , Samuels JA said at 702: “It is arguable that the ‘Event of Default’ in this case was one that could not be rectified because the precise time was fixed on 30 November 1987, that time had passed and could therefore not be retrieved: cf the remarks of Lord Wilberforce in Bunge Corporation, New York v Tradax Export SA, Panama [1981] 1 WLR 711 at 715; [1981] 2 All ER 513 at 541, in relation to breaches of time clauses; but see Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549 at 562. If that is the case, then there would be no need to go beyond cl 2.2.1(a). In his judgment Waddell A-JA has set out a passage from the judgment of Sugerman J in Batson v De Carvalho (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 417 at 427, concerning the construction of the words ‘capable of remedy’ in s 129(1)(b) of the Conveyancing Act 1919. I agree with Waddell A-JA that an analogous approach should be taken to the construction of cl 2.2.1. If that is that case, then one fixes upon the effect of the default in the given circumstances rather than upon the historical fact of its occurrence. The principal effect of Selkis’ default is that Tricontinental did not receive its money. If Selkis were given a (sic) opportunity to remedy this, it is possible that it could so arrange its affairs as to enable it to pay up. Hence it might be said that in this sense the event of default was capable of remedy.” (emphasis added)

Waddell AJA said at 722-723: “It is said that failure to pay on a particular date is not a default which is capable of rectification because the date has passed and nothing can be done to re-establish what should have been done. On this view, only a continuing default could be regarded as capable of rectification. However, in my opinion, the default in failing to pay the bills due on 30 November was capable of rectification by paying the money due, together with additional interest as provided by the facility agreement, at a future date. I adopt the reasoning of Sugerman J in Batson v De Carvalho … in relation to whether a default under a lease can be remedied.”

In our opinion, these authorities support his Honour’s construction of cl 15.2, which we consider to be correct. Is Clause 2.1 an Essential Term of the Agreement?

BKC contended that, even if it was compelled by cl 15.2 to give a notice to cure, it was still entitled to terminate the Development Agreement for breach of cl 2.1 which, BKC submitted, was an essential term of the contract. In this regard, BKC pointed out that time stipulations in commercial contracts are ordinarily construed as conditions: see for example Halsburys, 4th Ed, vol 9, para 482; Bunge Corporation v Tradax S.A [1981] 1 WLR 711 (cf Lord Wilberforce at 716F-H); Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537 (at 555 per Mason J).

However, this is only a prima facie rule and whether a term is essential depends upon the proper construction of the contract. The principle to be applied was stated by Jordon CJ in Tramways Advertising Pty Limited v Luna Park (NSW) (1938) SR (NSW) 632, at 641 - 642: “The test of essentiality is whether it appears from the general nature of the contract considered as a whole, or from some particular term or terms, that the promise is of such importance to the promisee that he would not have entered into the contract unless he had been assured of a strict or a substantial performance of the promise, as the case may be, and that this ought to have been apparent to the promisor: Flight v Booth; Bettini v Gye; Bentsen v Taylor …; Fullers Theatres Ltd v Musgrove; Bowes v Chaleyer; Clifton v Coffey. If the innocent party would not have entered into the contract unless assured of a strict and literal performance of the promise, he may in general treat himself as discharged upon any breach of the promise, however slight.”

See also DTR Nominees Pty Limited v Mona Homes Pty Limited (1978) 138 CLR 421, where Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ, referring to this passage, said at 431: “This statement of the law, which was approved in Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322 at 331, emphasizes that the quality of essentiality depends for its existence on a judgment which is made of the general nature of the contract and its particular provisions, a judgment which takes close account of the importance which the parties have attached to the provision as evidenced by the contract itself as applied to the surrounding circumstances.”

Strictly, it follows from our determination of the immediately preceding question that, once cl 2.1 is considered in conjunction with cls 7.3 and 8.1, it cannot be said that cl 2.1 satisfies the requirements for essentiality specified by Jordan CJ. Our view in this regard is reinforced by the provisions of cl 2.2.

These three clauses, cls 2.2, 7.3 and 8.1, are each predicated on and make provision for various circumstances where there has not been strict compliance. It is impossible to say, given the terms of these provisions, that BKC “would not have entered the contract unless assured of a strict and literal performance of the promise” : Tramways Advertising Pty Limited v Luna Park (NSW) per Jordan CJ at 642.

Clause 3.2 falls into a different category. However, in our opinion, by looking at whether there has been development of the total number of restaurants, viewed over the five year term, with the proviso that at least two be built in any one year, cl 3.2 underscores that strict compliance with cl 2.1 is not “of the essence” of the Development Agreement.

However, BKC submitted that to construe cl 2.1 other than as an essential term requiring strict adherence to the development schedule, would be to ignore the fundamental nature of the provision. Put another way, it was said that cl 2.1 contained the ‘core provision’ of the contract - namely the requirement that HJPL develop restaurants in accordance with a specified time. It was submitted that the essential nature of the provision was reflected not only in cl 2.1 but also in Recital F, which provided: “BKC and [HJPL] now wish to make further provision for the development of Burger King restaurants in Australia …”

We do not consider that this submission advances BKC’s case. Clauses 3.2, 7.3 and 8.1 also recognise that the development of restaurants is both the core entitlement and core requirement under the Development Agreement. But as we have already pointed out, various consequences flow from a failure to strictly comply with the development schedule. These consequences of non-compliance are not minor and cls 7.3 and 8.1 in particular involve significant benefits to BKC.

The 1990 Agreements provided other significant benefits to BKC. In particular, it had the benefit of the substantial development of the BKC system in Australia at HJPL’s cost. It also had the benefit of training, advertising and promotion of the system being provided by and at the cost of HJPL under the Service Agreement. Notwithstanding that these services had to be provided by HJPL, BKC was entitled to royalties, including one half of the royalties payable by third party franchisees. The evidence gave context to the real benefits obtained by BKC under the 1990 Agreements. For example, the Service Agreement was virtually unique, having only one other counterpart worldwide. The royalties which BKC received from its Australian operation, which at the time was essentially HJPL, provided the main source of income which enabled BKC to run the whole of the Asia Pacific operation.

It was next submitted that the right granted to HJPL in cl 1.1 was dependent upon HJPL meeting the rate of development in cl 2.1 (subject only to events of force majeure). We do not think this is a correct construction of cl 1.1. It is the right to be franchised which is subject to the full satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, although, we acknowledge that the right to develop, without the right to be franchised, would be of little or no commercial value to HJPL. Even so, because of the actual terms of cl 1.1, we do not consider that it advances BKC’s case on this issue.

It was further submitted by BKC that the requirements of cls 4 and 5, taken with cl 2.1, involve a complex series of related obligations, which emphasised the essentiality of cl 2.1. However, cls 4 and 5 do not within their terms involve time provisions. They specify the matters which HJPL has to satisfy (for example operational and financial approval) or which must be obtained (for example site approval) before a restaurant is opened. It might be said that these requirements were designed to keep HJPL ‘on the straight and narrow’ and operating strictly within the BKC system. However, these clauses do not impact in any way on the essentiality of the time provision in cl 2.1.

HJPL submitted, in its Notice of Contention, that recourse could be had to the 1986 and 1989 Agreements for the purposes of construing clause 2.1. As was the case with his Honour, we have reached our conclusion as to the proper construction of cl 2.1 without doing so. However, as the matter was argued, we propose to consider the point shortly. The structure of the 1986 and 1989 Agreements was relevantly similar to the Development Agreement. The provision for development was contained in cl 2 of both agreements and, in both, there was an express term that “ s trict adherence to the above development schedule is the essence of this agreement” . There is no such provision in cl 2.1 of the Development Agreement. Nor is there any provision in the 1986 and 1989 Agreements which is similar to cls 7.3 or 8.1. Indeed there could not be, as such provision would be inconsistent with the express essentiality provision of cl II of the earlier agreements.

It is an accepted principle of construction that deleted words in a standard form contract can be referred to as an aid to the meaning of ambiguous words in a term which remains: see Postle v Sengstock [1994] 2 QdR 290; Louis Dreyfus & Co v Parnaso cia. Naviera S.A. [1959] 1 QB 498; and London & Overseas Freighters Ltd v Timber Shipping Co S.A. [1972] AC 1. In Punjab National Bank v de Boinville [1992] 1 WLR 1138, Staughton LJ (Mann and Dillon LLJ agreeing) also considered (at 1148) that the fact of deletion could be used as an aid to construction. See also Mottram Consultants Ltd v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 197.

This case is not a case of deletion within the terms of a standard form contract. However, in South Sydney Council v Royal Botanic Gardens [1999] NSWCA 478 Spigelman CJ said at 35: “It is permissible to look at surrounding circumstances for purposes of interpretation of a contract ‘if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning’. (Codelfa supra at 352 per Mason J). As this passage indicates, in this context the word ‘ambiguity’ - ironically a word not without its own difficulties - does not refer only to a situation in which the words used have more than one meaning. A broader concept of ambiguity is involved: reference to surrounding circumstances is permissible whenever the intention of the parties is, for whatever reason, doubtful.”

We have found that, having regard to the provisions of the Development Agreement as a whole, the parties could not have intended that the development schedule in cl 2.1 called for strict compliance. However, if there was any ambiguity about the parties’ intention, then it would be proper to resort to surrounding circumstances, including consideration of the terms of the Development Agreement, which was entered into as a settlement of disputes arising under the 1986 and 1989 Agreements, as compared to the terms of those Agreements. The omission of the express provision of essentiality and the inclusion of terms inconsistent with cl 2.1 supports the conclusion to which we have come.

Accordingly, no right to rescind at common law had arisen at the time BKC gave the notice. IMPLIED TERMS

HJPL claimed that there were implied into the Development Agreement terms: that BKC would do all that was reasonably necessary to enable HJPL to enjoy the benefits of, inter alia, the Development Agreement (the implied term of co-operation); that BKC must act reasonably in exercising its powers under the Development Agreement; and that there was an implied obligation on BKC to act in good faith in the exercise of its contractual powers.

Rolfe J held that these terms could be implied and that there had been a breach of each of the implied terms. His Honour concluded that the consequence of BKC being in breach was that HJPL was “dispensed … of the necessity to continue performance” . His Honour also held: “in the absence of [a] factual justification there would be no basis [for BKC] to exercise the sole … discretion [under cl 4.1 of the Development Agreement].”

BKC disputed that there were implied terms of reasonableness and good faith and also disputed that it was in breach of any of the implied terms as found by Rolfe J. It accepted, however, that if there were such implied terms and it was in breach, it would follow that it could not rely on the Shorter Notice.

The implication of the implied term of co-operation was not controversial nor a matter in dispute between the parties: see McKay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251 where Lord Blackburn stated at 263 that: “as a general rule, … where in a written contract it appears that both parties have agreed that something shall be done, which cannot effectually be done unless both concur in doing it, the construction of the contract is that each agrees to do all that is necessary to be done on his part for the carrying out of that thing, though there may be no express words to that effect.

In relation to the second and third of these terms Rolfe J held that he was bound by decisions of this Court: “to hold that there is an implied term of either reasonableness or a duty of good faith or, perhaps both.” See Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Limited v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234; Hughes Bros Pty Limited v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Anor (1993) 31 NSWLR 91; Alcatel Australia Limited v Scarcella & Ors (1998) 44 NSWLR 349.

Until Renard , there had only been tentative acceptance in Australian jurisprudence of an implied term of good faith. However, in Renard Priestley JA said at 268: “… that people generally, including judges and other lawyers, from all strands of the community, have grown used to the courts applying standards of fairness to contract which are wholly consistent with the existence in all contracts of a duty upon the parties of good faith and fair dealing in its performance. In my view this is in these days the expected standard, and anything less is contrary to prevailing community expectations.”

Priestley JA reviewed the influence that the Uniform Commercial Code (1951), and its later formulation in the Restatement (Second) of Contract (1981), had had on American case law.

We respectfully refer to his Honour’s detailed treatment of this development and do not repeat it, except to refer to of the Restatement (Second) s 205 (1981) which provides: “Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.”

Priestley JA considered, at 268, that there were strong arguments “for recognition in Australia of [such a] duty” .

His Honour also observed that the American experience indicated that judges used the notion of good faith flexibly as an “excluder” . In other words, the concept “serve[d] to exclude many heterogeneous forms of bad faith” so as “to do justice according to law” . See generally R S Summers in “Good Faith” in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (1968) 54 Virginia Law Review 1995, discussed by Priestley JA at 266-7.

In seeking to find a place for the established American jurisprudence in Australian law, Priestley JA drew upon a wide source of material. We wish to refer only to two of those sources. First, there is the well documented Australian experience of controlling the operation of general rescission clauses by preventing their use “for improper and extraneous purposes” : see Godfrey Constructions Pty Limited v Kanagra Park Pty Limited (1972) 128 CLR 529 at 548. See also Pierce Bell Sales Pty Limited v Frazer (1973) 130 CLR 575 per Barwick CJ at 587. Secondly, there are the many statutory provisions, which require contracting parties in a variety of circumstances to act reasonably and fairly. Priestley JA cited by way of example (at 268) The Money-Lenders and Infants Loan Act 1905, the Hire Purchase Agreement Acts of 1941 and 1960, s 88F of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (inserted in 1949 and expanded in 1966), the Contracts Review Act 1980, the Credit Act 1984 and s 51A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (inserted to operate from 1986).

His Honour then concluded at 268: “Although each of these statutes dealt with carefully defined types of contract, in their totality they covered contractual situations affecting a great many people, so that, to repeat something I have said elsewhere, ‘a very large area of everyday contract law is now directly affected by statutory unconscionability provisions carrying with them broad remedies’. As the words used in the sequence of statutes show, the ideas of unconscionability, unfairness and lack of good faith have a great deal in common. The result is that people generally, including judges and other lawyers, from all strands of the community, have grown used to the courts applying standards of fairness to contract which are wholly consistent with the existence in all contracts of a duty upon the parties of good faith and fair dealing in its performance. In my view this is in these days the expected standard, and anything less is contrary to prevailing community expectations.” (emphasis added)

The other members of the Court in Renard were Meagher and Handley JJA. All three members of the Court agreed in the result. Meagher JA at 276 considered that, on the facts, the respondent acted under such a misapprehension and prejudice in relation to the correct factual circumstances, he could not have been “satisfied” within the meaning of the clause. Handley JA at 279 held that, as a matter of construction, the respondent’s power to “take over the whole or any part of the work” or cancel the contract, had to be exercised reasonably. Priestley JA, as a postscript to his judgment, said at 271: “… I have had the benefit of reading what Handley JA has written. He brings to light cases which both bear directly on the principal question of substance in this case and provide illustrations of my general theme of the anxiety of courts, by various techniques, to promote fair and reasonable contract performance. His materials, and his analysis of them lead directly and powerfully to the conclusion I more laboriously reached when considering implication. However, I will still restrict the reasoning upon which I base my own conclusion about the implied term to that preceding the heading ‘Statutory Analogy’.

His Honour then stated that he restricted the reasoning upon which he based his conclusion on the appeal in Renard to the issue of reasonableness. We have referred and relied extensively upon his Honour’s judgment in so far as it deals with an implied obligation of good faith, as it provides, obiter, authoritative background to the development of the law on this issue.

In Alcatel , Sheller JA (Powell and Beazley JJA agreeing) accepted that there could be an obligation of good faith implied into commercial contracts. His Honour said at 368: “If a contract confers power on a contracting party in terms wider than necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of that party, the courts may interpret the power as not extending to the action proposed by the party in whom the power is vested or, alternatively, conclude that the powers are being exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner or for an extraneous purpose, which is another [way] of saying the same thing. Thus, a vendor may not be allowed to exercise a contractual power where it would be unconscionable in the circumstances to do so: Pierce Bell Sales Pty Ltd v Frazer.”

Sheller JA concluded at 369: “The decisions in Renard Constructions and Hughes Bros mean that in New South Wales a duty of good faith, both in performing obligations and exercising rights, may by implication be imposed upon parties as part of a contract. There is no reason why such a duty should not be implied as part of this lease.”

Hughes Bros v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney was not concerned with an implication of good faith, but with the implied term of reasonableness in connection with a different but related term in the same contract which was under consideration in Renard . The Court in Hughes Bros considered itself bound by Renard .

In Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia (1997) 76 FCR 151, Finn J at 192 considered that the “more open recognition [of an implied term of good faith] in our own contract law is now warranted” . In expressing that view, his Honour pointedly departed from the view, expressed by Gummow J in Service Station Association Limited v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 84 at 96, that it required a “leap of faith” to convert well established equitable doctrines and remedies “into a new term as to the quality of contractual performance implied by law” .

A review of cases since Alcatel indicates that courts in various Australian jurisdictions have, for the most part, proceeded upon an assumption that there may be implied, as a legal incident of a commercial contract, terms of good faith and reasonableness. For example, in Far Horizons Pty Ltd v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2000] VSC 310 Byrne J, in dealing with the provisions of a standard licence agreement whereby independent operators were licensed to conduct McDonalds fast food stores, said at para 120: “… I do not see myself at liberty to depart from the considerable body of authority in this country which has followed the decisions of the New South Court of Appeal in Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd V Minister for Public Works. I proceed, therefore, on the basis that there is to be implied in a franchise agreement a term of good faith and fair dealing which obliges each party to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the agreement in good faith and reasonably, and not capriciously or for some extraneous purpose. Such a term is a legal incident of such a contract”.

In Garry Rogers Motors Aust Pty Limited v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-703, which involved a standard form motor vehicle dealership agreement, Finkelstein J said at 43,014: “The first respondent was prepared to accept the implication of [a term of good faith] in the dealership agreement for the purposes of the interlocutory application. It could hardly do otherwise. Recent cases make it clear that in appropriate contracts, perhaps even in all commercial contracts, such a term will ordinarily be implied; not as an ad hoc term (based on the presumed intention of the parties) but as a legal incident of the relationship; see Renard v Constructions (VIC) Pty Limited v Minister for Public Works; Hughes Bros Pty Limited v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Anor; Alcatel Australia Limited v Scarcella & Ors. If such a term is implied it will require a contracting party to act in good faith and fairly, not only in relation to the performance of a contractual obligation, but also in the exercise of a power conferred by the contract. There is no reason to think, prima facie at least, that the obligation of good faith and fair dealing would not act as a restriction on a power to terminate a contract, especially if that power is in general terms.”

In Saxby Bridge Mortgages Pty Ltd v Saxby Bridge Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 433, Simos J rejected the implication of a term of good faith in an agreement, inter alia, for the provision of mortgage services. However, his Honour approached the question on the basis of whether the conditions necessary for the implication of a term, ad hoc, had been satisfied. He does not appear to have considered whether such a term was a necessary legal incident of the contract. Saxby Bridge appears to stand on its own in this regard.

In Asia Television Ltd v Yau’s Entertainment Pty Ltd (2000) 48 IPR 283 Gyles J stated that the implication of a term to act in good faith in a licence agreement, in which the second applicant licensed entertainment programmes for reproduction and distribution by the respondent, and the scope and content of such a clause were “controversial questions” . Without finally determining whether there were such implied terms, his Honour held that there was no relevant application of such an obligation on the facts of that case.

This necessarily brief survey of the case law post Alcatel indicates that obligations of good faith and reasonableness will be more readily implied in standard form contracts, particularly if such contracts contain a general power of termination. Clearly, however, the cases where these terms are to be implied are not limited to standard form agreements. Alcatel itself, which involved a 50 year lease agreement of commercial premises, provides an example of a one off contract where such terms were implied.

There also appears to be increasing acceptance ( Saxby Bridge aside) that if terms of good faith and reasonableness are to be implied, they are to be implied as a matter of law. We consider that to be correct. The argument by Mr Archibald, senior counsel for BKC, proceeded on that basis. He submitted, however, that the pre-conditions for the implication of a term at law had not been satisfied in this case, and that the implication was unnecessary as the contract comprehensively dealt with the rights of the parties. This raises the question of when a term will be implied at law.

Traditionally, specific terms have been implied as a matter of law into contracts of a certain class. Examples include contracts between employer/employee (implied term not to disclose secret processes), for the sale of goods (implied terms of reasonable fitness and merchantable quality and that payment and delivery of goods are concurrent obligations), for the provision of work and materials, between landlord and tenant (implied term that premises will be reasonably fit for habitation) and in contracts of carriage by sea (an implied warranty of seaworthiness): see Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 448; Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468 at 487; Professor Glanville Williams, “Language and the Law” (1945) 61 Law Quarterly Review 403. Of course, some of these are implications now codified by statute: for example, contracts for sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW).

The Development Agreement does not fall into any of the traditional class of cases where terms have been implied as an incident of the contract.

For a term to be implied at law in a new category of case, it must be both reasonable and necessary: see Castlemaine Toohey and Byrne . In Byrne , McHugh and Gummow JJ explained the meaning of necessity in this context. They said at 450: “Many of the terms now said to be implied by law in various categories of case reflect the concern of the courts that, unless such a term be implied, the enjoyment of the rights conferred by the contract would or could be rendered nugatory, worthless, or, perhaps, be seriously undermined . Hence, the reference in the decisions to ‘necessity’. … This notion of ‘necessity’ has been crucial in the modern cases in which the courts have implied for the first time a new term as a matter of law.” (emphasis added)

It is within the framework of that notion of necessity that we consider in detail the submissions of each of the parties as to whether there should be implied into the Development Agreement the terms of good faith and reasonableness. Before doing so however, it is convenient to understood what is involved in those terms if they are implied. Meaning of Good Faith and Reasonableness

We have already touched upon this: see especially from paragraph 146. However, it is worth noting that the Australian cases make no distinction of substance between the implied term of reasonableness and that of good faith. As Priestley JA said in Renard at 263: “ The kind of reasonableness I have been discussing seems to me to have much in common with the notions of good faith”.

Priestley JA commented further at 265 that: “… in ordinary English usage there has been constant association between the words fair and reasonable. Similarly there is a close association of ideas between the terms unreasonableness, lack of good faith and unconscionability.”

Rolfe J observed that in Alcatel , Sheller JA at 369 appeared to equate the notions of “reasonableness” and “good faith” . Whilst Sheller JA did not say that in terms, his review of the case law and academic and extra-judicial writings on the topic, clearly support the proposition. In addition to his references to Renard , Sheller JA referred to the statement of Sir Anthony Mason in his 1993 Cambridge Lecture, that it was probable that the concept of good faith “embraced no less than three related notions” : “(1) an obligation on the parties to co-operate in achieving the contractual objects (loyalty to the promise itself); (2) compliance with honest standards of conduct; and (3) compliance with standards of contract which are reasonable having regard to the interests of the parties.”

In Garry Rogers, Finkelstein J considered at 43,014 that such a term imposed an obligation on a party “not to act capriciously” . He pointed out, however, that such a term will not restrict a party acting so as to promote its own “legitimate interests” . As his Honour explained, “provided the party exercising the power acts reasonably in all the circumstances the duty to act fairly and in good faith will ordinarily be satisfied” .

The same point was made in Kham & Nates Shoes No 2 Inc v First Bank of Whiting (1990) 908 F 2d 1351, at 1357, that “[p]rinciples of good faith … do not block use of terms that actually appear in the contract” . There must be something more. This was explained in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co v RJR Nabisco Inc (1989) 716 F Supp 1504, at 1517: “In other words, the implied covenant will only aid and further the explicit terms of the agreement and will never impose an obligation ‘which would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship’. … Viewed another way, the implied covenant of good faith is breached only when one party seeks to prevent the contract’s performance or to withhold its benefits. … As a result, it thus ensures that parties to a contract perform the substantive, bargained-for terms of their agreement.” See also Rio Algom Corporation v Jimco Ltd (1980) Utah, 618 P 2d 497.

BKC submitted that there should not be implied into the Development Agreement implied terms of reasonableness or good faith (or any hybrid of the two). It raised two general objections to the implication of such terms. First, it was said that caution should be exercised in implying any such terms, as “such terms are calculated to subvert and distort the carefully negotiated and articulated contractual balance which the parties have achieved” .

Secondly, it was submitted that such a term should not be implied where the application would occasion contradiction of, or friction with, express provisions of the contract: see for example Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v RJR Nabisco Incorporated . It was submitted that His Honour erred in not asking whether there would be such contradiction or friction. It was then submitted that as the express provisions of the Development Agreement “comprehensively and exhaustively delineate the rights and obligations of the parties. [They] cover the field” and any implied term of reasonableness or good faith would “pro tanto” be inconsistent. The provisions of cl 4.1 (a) and cl 4.2 were said to demonstrate this point.

Those clauses, it was submitted, established an “objective benchmark against which the grant or withholding of operational approval” was to be made. It was submitted that “[t]he introduction of a generalised qualification of reasonableness to that subject matter would alter the expressly formulated benchmark and to effect a substantive modification to the operation of the express term” . We understand this submission to mean that the objective benchmarks were the need to have operational, financial and legal approval as defined in cl 4.2. This submission is acceptable in so far as it goes. However, it does not grapple with two fundamental issues. First, the granting of operational, financial and legal approval is within “the sole discretion” of BKC. If full force is given to that concept, it would allow BKC to give or to withhold relevant approval “at its whim” including capriciously, or with the sole intent of engineering a default of the Development Agreement, giving rise to a right to terminate. That is hardly the language of objectivity. The point is well illustrated by the observations of Priestley JA in Renard at 258: “It seems clear that the words of the clause empower the principal to give a notice to show cause upon any default in carrying out any requirement in the contract. Thus for a completely trivial default the principal can give a notice to show cause. It is possible to imagine many situations in which, if a notice for some trivial breach were given the contractor might fail, as a matter of fact, to show cause within the specified period to the satisfaction of the principal why the powers should not be exercised against him. (One obvious example would be where, through some mistake, the contractor’s attempt to show cause was delivered late.) For the principal, in such circumstances, to be able then to exclude the contractor from the site and/or cancel the contract would be, in my opinion, to make the contract as a matter of business quite unworkable. One way of explaining this view is to say that no contractor in his senses would enter into a contract under which such a thing could happen. The reasonable contractor, the reasonable principal and the reasonable looker-on would all assume that such a result could not come about except with good reason. The over-riding purpose of the contract from both the contractor’s and the principal’s point of view is to have the contract work completed by the contractor in accordance with the contract, in return for payment by the principal in accordance with the contract. The insertion of a sub-clause such as subcl 44.1 not subject to the constraint of reasonable use by the principal is quite inconsistent with all the main contractual promises by each party to the contract to the other.”

Secondly, on BKC’s submission, an exercise of discretion on wrong facts fell within the ambit of cl 4.1 provided that the wrong facts were not fraudulently determined. That too would permit BKC to effectively put an end to HJPL’s valuable development rights under the Development Agreement for reasons which could not be justified on the facts if they were accurately ascertained. In our opinion, applying the words used by McHugh and Gummow JJ in Byrne , the “enjoyment of the rights conferred by the contract would or could be rendered nugatory, worthless or perhaps seriously undermined” if the clause was able to operate in the manner for which BKC contended.

BKC sought to resist this result by submitting that the clause remained workable without the implication, as a fraudulent exercise of the discretion would not satisfy the clause (which is correct) and that de minimis breaches would not permit an exercise of discretion against the grant of approval. In regard to the latter point, it was submitted that whilst de minimis contraventions of operation or financial requirements were simply “to be disregarded” , minor breaches were not.

On HJPL’s construction of cl 4.1, the matters specified in sub cls (a), (b) and (c) operate as conditions precedent to grant of approval to a franchise application. HJPL submitted, however, that the criteria for operational approval were wide and indefinite in two respects.

First, cl 4.1(a) required that the interior and exterior of restaurants be maintained to reflect “an acceptable Burger King image” . Mr Bathurst, senior counsel for HJPL, sought to demonstrate this point by reference to the requirement to comply with the standard specifications and procedures contained in BKC’s Manual of Operating Data. The manual contains the most detailed requirements relating to every aspect of operating a Burger King restaurant from food handling to recruiting, cleaning and manner and style of service. Page five of the Service Procedure Requirements provides an example. It sets out a nine phase service procedure starting with the first requirement “smile greet and order” and ending with the “smile thank you and parting phrase” such as “thanks very much, have a great day” or “thanks for coming, hope to see you again soon” . Senior counsel submitted it would be impossible not to find at least one operational breach in each restaurant, so that, unless some restriction was placed upon the operation of cl 4.1 the rights under the Development Agreement would be illusory.

Secondly, it confers upon BKC the right to change its standards, specifications and procedures at its sole discretion. It would appear to follow, on this submission, that it could do so without notice to HJPL, there being no contractual obligation to give notice of the change, unless the provision was conditioned by an obligation of reasonableness or good faith.

Senior counsel further submitted that BKC’s response that a de minimis breach would not disqualify a contracting party from operational approval did not provide an adequate answer to this problem because of the uncertainty that this would otherwise import into the operation of the clause. Rather, it was necessary to imply the terms of reasonableness and good faith so as to ensure that HJPL had the contractual benefits to which it was entitled under the Development Agreement.

In our opinion, HJPL’s submission must be correct. There is such an extraordinary range of detailed considerations, particularly in relation to whether operational requirements have been satisfied, contained within cl 4.1(a), that unless there was an implied requirement of reasonableness and good faith, BKC could, for the slightest of breaches, bring to an end the very valuable rights which HJPL had under the Development Agreement. Further, contrary to BKC’s submissions, cl 4 does not contain only objective criteria against which the discretion is to be exercised. There are many subjective, evaluative notions involved. The reflection of “an acceptable Burger King image” is one example. Senior counsel’s example is another.

The meaning of cl 4.1(b) provides further support for the implication of these terms. That clause requires that for the purposes of financial approval, HJPL’s stores must all be performing their obligations under their individual franchise agreements and HJPL must not be in default of any of its financial obligations to BKC. These two criteria qualify as objective benchmarks against which to grant, or not to grant, financial approval. However, BKC contended that HJPL’s obligations under cl 4.1(b) went further and that the provision that HJPL “acknowledges and agrees that it is vital to BKC’s interest that a franchisee be financially sound to avoid a business failure affecting the reputation and good name of the Burger King marks” imposed a contractual requirement to that effect on HJPL. The other possible construction of this part of cl 4.1(b), and that favoured by HJPL, is that it was no more than an acknowledgment of a particular circumstance and did not impose a contractual obligation.

For present purposes, and without deciding the matter, we propose to assume that BKC’s submission on this is correct and that this part of cl 4(1)(b) has contractual content. Once that assumption is made, it can be immediately seen that the provision is also wide and can have both an objective and subjective content. That being so, it reinforces our view that BKC’s contractual powers under cl 4.1 are to be exercised in good faith and reasonably. That does not mean that BKC is not entitled to have regard only to its own legitimate interests in exercising its discretion. However, it must not do so for a purpose extraneous to the contract - for example, by withholding financial or operational approval where there is no basis to do so, so as to thwart HJPL’s rights under the contract.

In conclusion, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Development Agreement is subject to implied terms of reasonableness and good faith and his Honour was correct to so find.

We should observe at this point that contrary to the submission of BKC, his Honour did not equate the implication of the terms of reasonableness and good faith with BKC’s fiduciary obligations. In other words, his Honour did not find that BKC was required to prefer the respondent’s interests to its own or to subjugate its interests to those of the respondents - the fiduciary duty point. Rather, his Honour found that the discretion conferred in cl 4.1 was one which was required to be exercised reasonably, so that it could not be used for a purpose foreign to that for which it was granted, such as to thwart the respondent’s right to develop and ultimately to procure a situation where the Agreement could be terminated. This approach is consistent with the principles stated in South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club v News Ltd (2000) 177 ALR 611 and is the conclusion to which we have come. Breach of the Implied Terms of Good Faith and Reasonableness

His Honour held that BKC had breached the implied contractual provision of good faith and reasonableness in the following respects: (i) its conduct in purporting to terminate the Development Agreement; (ii) placing a freeze on the ability of HJPL to recruit third party franchisees; (iii) withholding financial approval to development under the Development Agreement; and (iv) refusing operational approval under the Development Agreement.

In reaching his conclusion, his Honour applied an objective standard in deciding that BKC’s actions were neither reasonable nor for a legitimate purpose. In coming to that conclusion, his Honour considered the actions of the individuals at senior management/decision making level within BKC. Upon an evaluation of the actions of those persons his Honour held that they did not conform with an honest person’s view of what would constitute fair dealing. His Honour’s approach, if correctly based, is consistent with Renard at 258, 261 and 268.

BKC submitted that his Honour erred in finding breach, submitting that it was necessary to distinguish between conduct which took advantage of power and information in the hands of one party to advance a party’s own position to the detriment of another and conduct which was correctly characterised as lacking good faith in a legal sense.

In considering the of question whether his Honour was correct in finding that there had been a breach of the implied terns, it is convenient to deal with the issues of third party freeze and financial and operational disapproval as BKC’s conduct in giving the Shorter Notice is dependant, in some respects, upon the determination of those issues. The conduct in giving the Longer Notice raises separate considerations.

Before dealing with any of these issues, however, we refer to BKC’s attempts to impose upon HJPL the requirement to enter into Target Reservation Agreements (TRA) in respect of proposed new restaurants. This was in place of the Preliminary Agreement which was one of the agreements specified in the Development Agreement as being a preliminary requirement to the grant of franchise approval. This attempt occurred first in point of time and is part of the contextual background in which the other events occurred. Target Reservation Agreement

BKC sought to introduce the TRA in about March 1995 in place of the Preliminary Agreement. Although some of the terms of the TRA reflected those of the Preliminary Agreement, there were a number of substantial departures. Thus, Article 1.1 of the TRA provided: “ Exclusive Development Rights . Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Developer is hereby granted the exclusive right to … search for potential Restaurant sites at or within the Target Locations. A Target Location is defined as either a specific area with clear, describable boundaries or a specific property description or address. It is expressly understood, however, that this exclusivity is solely for the purpose of locating potential sites prior to development of a Restaurant, and that after opening of a Restaurant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, (a) all exclusivity and all territorial rights terminate, (b) BKC is free to locate additional Burger King restaurants anywhere near or within the Target Locations as it deems appropriate in its sole business judgment, and (c) the Developer waives any right it may have to oppose the location of such additional Burger King restaurants anywhere near or within the Target Locations.”

It will be immediately observed that this provision is contrary to the rights granted to HJPL under cl 7.3 of the Development Agreement in relation to HJPL’s development rights in the development states. In particular, under the TRA, once HJPL built a restaurant, its rights of exclusivity were abrogated, whereas, under cl 7.3 of the Development Agreement, provided HJPL was in compliance with the development schedule, BKC could only develop restaurants in the development states (either directly or through franchisees) if it had HJPL’s prior consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld).

Clause 1.4.1 purported to provide some protection to existing stores. However, it significantly detracted from HJPL’s rights under the Development Agreement. It provided that an existing franchisee had 15 days to object to any proposed new store within a five kilometre radius. The existing franchisee then had another 15 days to: “(a) Provide BKC with evidence, including without limitation a written rationale and a proforma income statement, supporting the Developer’s belief that the New Location will render all reasonable sites within the Impacted Target Location no longer economically viable or profitable: and (b) Use its best efforts to locate and submit to BKC a Substitute Target Location for approval by BKC pursuant to BKC’s then current approval criteria.”

Article 4 of the TRA set out the target reservation and development procedures in respect of any proposed new site. Clause 4.2.2 replicated cl 4.1 of the Development Agreement.

Clause 4.2.4 then added an additional requirement to that found in the Development Agreement in respect of site approval. It provided that an applicant (referred to in the TRA as ‘the developer’) required written site approval from BKC as a prerequisite to authorisation to begin construction of a restaurant at a particular location. BKC had the right in its sole business judgment to deny site approval if it considered: “that the location is not an appropriate restaurant site: the location is inconsistent with BKC’s market planning: the location lies within a trade or market area which may materially affect an existing franchisee of BKC: development at the site proposed by the developer will cause a material loss of sales to an existing BKC licensed restaurant: or the proposed site is unacceptable to BKC for any other good faith reasons”.

The effect of this clause was that, even after franchise approval had been granted, the applicant, who relevantly for present purposes was HJPL, was at the mercy of BKC in relation to the site at which a restaurant could be developed. Clause 2 of the Preliminary Agreement had also required site approval but did not contain the restrictions found in the TRA. The terms of cl 4.2.2 of the TRA were therefore a significant step in advancing BKC’s aim to regain control of the Australian market. Miolla agreed that it was this provision of the TRA which contained “the sting in the tail” .

Article 5 related to fees. In particular cl 5.1.1 introduced for the first time the requirement that the applicant pay a non-refundable deposit of US$10,000 for each target location specified in the application. However, as appears from the correspondence from BKC to HJPL on 17 March 1995 and is confirmed in the letter to Cowin on 7 May 1995, the fee was intended to be offset against franchise fees and in HJPL’s case, would be repaid upon opening of a new store.

Fitzjohn said he believed that the TRA was designed to achieve a similar objective to the Preliminary Agreement through a different mechanism. Both Fitzjohn and Miolla agreed, however, that the requirement that there be a payment as a consideration of entering into the TRA was a fundamental difference from the provisions of the Preliminary Agreement. In practice, that requirement may not have been so drastic, except to the extent that an up front payment had to be made, whereas none had been previously required. Of much greater significance in our opinion, was the extent to which the provisions of the TRA diminished HJPL’s existing rights, particularly under the Development Agreement. In this regard, Miolla conceded that the introduction of the TRA was one of the steps involved “in taking back the market place” .

On 10 July 1995, there was a meeting between Miolla and Blauer on behalf of BKC and Cowin. The issue of the TRAs was raised at that meeting. Cowin advised them that the TRA took away HJPL’s rights under the Development Agreement. Cowin said that he did not “object to a co-ordinated approach to market planning [but one], which preserves our rights” .

The issue in relation to the TRAs remained on foot until early 1996. At the end of the day, BKC did not succeed in having HJPL enter into any TRAs. However, it was submitted on behalf of HJPL that BKC’s attempts to introduce the new form of agreement was evidence that BKC, in this period, was intent on taking control of the Australian market and was prepared to do so in disregard of HJPL’s rights. We will return to this submission later.

It was also submitted that the matter is relevant to damages as it was an example of another hurdle put in the way of HJPL in the development of its restaurants. Third Party Freeze

In order to determine whether his Honour’s conclusion that BKC had deliberately pursued a course to thwart HJPL’s rights under the Development Agreement is correct, it is necessary to review BKC’s corporate conduct in the period leading up to the withholding of operational and financial approval and the imposition of the third party freeze.

His Honour held that BKC’s freeze on third party recruitment was not justified by the Development Agreement nor by any of the factual matters upon which BKC sought to justify it being imposed. His Honour concluded, at 544, that by imposing the freeze: “BKC was pursuing a course of attempting to thwart HJPL’s further development, so that BKC could develop the market without regards to the rights of HJPL”

His Honour was also satisfied that the effect of the freeze: “dispensed HJPL of the necessity to continue to tender performance. In the circumstances BKC was in breach of contract by imposing the freeze.”

The third party freeze was imposed in May 1995 to allow for the finalisation of an updated pro forma Profit and Loss statement (the pro forma P&L) to be included in the new Information Package which was being prepared at that time for proposed franchisees. Power advised Miolla, by email dated 17 May 1995, that he had instructed McCarthy to cease third party franchisee recruitment. Effectively, the freeze was never lifted.

It should be noted at the outset that BKC did not assert that the freeze was authorised by the terms of the Development Agreement or any other contract between the parties. Rather, BKC relied upon a concession by McCarthy in cross-examination that he agreed to the third party freeze. BKC submitted, therefore, that there was no legal fault in it having imposed the freeze.

There was evidence which suggests that there was nothing unreasonable in BKC requesting that third party franchisees not be recruited at that time until finalisation of the pro forma P&L statement. Certainly McCarthy considered it was an appropriate step to take at that time. A new Information Package was being prepared and, in early May 1995, Power had found some discrepancies in the draft pro forma document which had been prepared, as well as in the actual figures, at least for one state. This led to discussion, not only as to whether the information in the draft document was correct, but also what financial information should be included.

Senior counsel for HJPL submitted that HJPL had not consented to a freeze as such. Rather, it was submitted that the subject of both the letter of 17 May 1995, when Power informed Miolla that he had instructed McCarthy to cease third party franchisee recruitment, and Miolla’s letter to McCarthy, confirming that he believed they were in agreement in relation to the freeze, was the need to have accurate information in the pro forma P&L, which was part of the Information Package forwarded to prospective franchisees. It was further submitted that McCarthy’s concession in cross-examination was restricted to that issue. It was submitted that in any event Cowin objected strenuously to the freeze. This was particularly so when, in December 1995, BKC changed the basis upon which it said the freeze was required, namely HJPL’s weak financial performance. Cowin wrote to Miolla, on 19 December 1995, asking that BKC “[p]lease explain” its position, especially as HJPL had met BKC’s “financial criteria at the most recent review” . HJPL submitted that the freeze was neither contractually based nor otherwise justifiable, but was merely another step, as was the TRA issue and the exclusion of HJPL from the Shell venture, along the way to BKC “[taking] back the market” . It followed on this submission that the trial judge’s finding that McCarthy had not agreed to the third party freeze was correct.

It is important to keep in mind that when the third party freeze was imposed, Power indicated to McCarthy that this was a “lull” only, so that forms and procedures could be “settled on” . It is clear from Power’s letter of 20 June 1995, that the lull was intended to be for a short period only and that this is how it was understood by McCarthy. This is apparent from his facsimile to Power, on 25 July 1995, when he asked when it was expected that the pro forma P&L would be finalised. Power responded that it would be within the next four weeks. McCarthy advised persons inquiring in relation to third party franchises accordingly.

This, in our opinion, confirms that HJPL did not consent to any ongoing freeze.

Miolla asserted in his cross-examination that McCarthy’s agreement went beyond a freeze until the pro forma P&L was prepared. He said that the agreement was that there should be no further franchising until the pro forma P&L situation was sorted out and “if, once getting to the right numbers, they showed that the system was on average making a loss, then it was my understanding that Fitzjohn, Power, Blauer and McCarthy all agreed that we should temporarily suspend recruiting franchisees” . Miolla said that the idea was that the freeze was imposed until, on a restaurant profit and loss level, the position was reversed. Miolla also asserted that this agreement was subject to an exception in respect of large or institutional franchisees, who had the financial resources to incur a loss.

However, acting on Power’s advice, McCarthy in the ensuing months put forward a number of third party franchisee applications for approval. He followed up these applications seeking advice as to when they would be approved. He put forward suggestions as to how BKC could deal with the applications in the short term. When no result was forthcoming from BKC, he advised Cowin that he considered the matter was urgent and HJPL should seek a review of the situation.

Thus, neither the communications between the parties nor McCarthy’s actions after having been informed that third party recruiting was to cease, support BKC’s submission that McCarthy had consented to the freeze, as opposed to a short term interruption to enable the pro forma P&L to be finalised - a task which was BKC’s to undertake and complete.

Accordingly, we agree with his Honour’s finding that McCarthy did not consent to the freeze, in the sense contended by BKC. Rather, he agreed to a temporary suspension whilst the matter of the pro forma P&L was sorted out.

That leads to two other matters. First, in order for BKC to finalise the pro forma P&L, it needed HJPL’s financial information. There was no suggestion that HJPL did not provide this. Indeed, up until about June 1995, HJPL was providing financial information on a monthly basis. On 3 July 1995, Butler wrote to Power, enclosing P&L’s for each state for the financial year ended June 1994 and stating “I am not sure where you are with the pro forma P & L’s but from a recent discussion with [Cowin] I believe this is in your court” . No one in BKC advised HJPL that the position was otherwise. Indeed, the position from about the middle of June 1995 was that BKC did nothing to advance the preparation of the pro forma P&L.

The second matter is this. In about mid-October 1995, BKC changed, or at least expanded upon, the reason why it had imposed the freeze. On 18 October, Miolla wrote to Cowin and advised him that BKC had decided to suspend franchisee recruitment “given the lack of financial performance by the system” . BKC did not again refer to the issues concerning the pro forma P&L until mid March 1996.

Miolla said that he assumed the 18 October 1995 letter was a considered letter. He was then cross-examined as follows: “Q I want to put to you again that the freeze on third party franchisees, because outlets were operating unprofitably, was a freeze unilaterally imposed by Burger King. Do you agree with that? A I don’t think I can agree with that, no, and I’m not trying to imply … that they didn’t protest. What I’m trying to say that initially there was a discussion of our concerns and the way they sought to address those concerns was by saying we were reading the financial information incorrectly. That was the nature of the protest, so if that equals doing it unilaterally, then, yes, we did it unilaterally. If that equals we talked about it, expressed our concerns and we tried to work through them, I mean, that’s all I’m trying to say .” (emphasis added) He added that HJPL “protested vehemently our analysis of the financial issue” .

Miolla was cross examined further: “Q I want to suggest to you that when you said that Hungry Jack’s agreed to a freeze because of poor performance in the system, that was false. Do you agree with that? A No. Q I also want to suggest to you that the evidence you gave [that McCarthy agreed that there would be a freeze because Hungry Jack’s was making a loss] was false. Do you agree with that? A As I’ve just said, my answer today is correct. I would agree on looking back [at my previous answer] that my answer is incorrect and that its not adequate(sic) detailed.”

This evidence does not support the proposition that HJPL consented to the freeze because of its financial position. Significantly, Cowin was never cross-examined to the effect that he had done so.

It should also be noted at this point that, although BKC in its submissions relied upon a consensual third party freeze, it has never done so on the basis that the consent was given because of lack of financial performance by the system.

In summary, the position in relation to the third party freeze was as follows. Except to the extent that McCarthy agreed to a temporary and short term suspension of third party franchisee recruitment, we are satisfied that HJPL did not consent to the imposition of the freeze. BKC did not seek to support the freeze on any contractual basis. The freeze was imposed at a time when BKC had made a policy decision to, in some way, take back the Australian market. It was clear that what was meant by this was that it was actively seeking ways to at least reduce HJPL’s dominant role if it could not remove it from the market altogether. One of the means available to HJPL to both satisfy the development schedule and to develop generally was through third party franchisee arrangements. HJPL was precluded from doing so from mid May 1995 at a time when there was evidence that there was active interest by prospective franchisee applicants. Although in May 1995 there may have been a reasonable basis to suspend the processing of applications for a short time, there was no basis for BKC to do so from at least early June 1995 onwards.

We consider, therefore, that the continued imposition of the freeze was in breach of the implied terms of reasonableness and good faith. Financial Disapproval

HJPL was financially disapproved by BKC on 12 September 1995 when Miolla wrote to Cowin advising that pending “expansion requests are delayed due to the delay in delivering your year-end financial statements” . The reason given for BKC’s action was that: “the terms of the Development Agreement prohibit HJPL from expanding unless it submits annual, audited financial statements which show that it is in compliance with our financial requirements for expansion.”

The Development Agreement contained no express provision to that effect. Miolla eventually conceded that in cross-examination.

Rolfe J held that on the proper construction of cl 4.1, “as a matter of contract, BKC was not entitled to the further financial information it was seeking” . BKC submitted, however, that the effect of the provisions of cl 4.1 and, in particular, the terms of the standard Capitalisation Plan and cl 4.1(b) enabled it to seek the information and conduct the review it did.

Before dealing with the provisions of the Capitalisation Plan and cl 4.1(b), it is necessary to return to an earlier point in the chronology.

In May 1994, HJPL lodged applications for 28 new restaurant sites. The applications were eventually forwarded to Driscoll for financial approval in about October 1994. On 14 October 1994, she wrote to Butler advising: “In order to process the financial piece of the approval, I need Hungry Jack’s most recent fiscal year-end financial statements, that include individual restaurant P&L’s, a consolidated P&L for the entire business, a consolidated balance sheet and statement of cash flows, as well as all accompanying notes to the financial statements. Also, if available, I would need a debt service schedule, outlining the terms and the annual principal payments and interest payments.”

Although the company referred to in the fax transmission header was “Competitive Foods Aust Ltd” , it appears from the context generally and other correspondence that the accounts being requested were HJPL’s. It is not certain from the judgment at first instance how Rolfe J understood the letter. However, we have treated it as a reference to HJPL.

In November 1994, Butler provided HJPL’s “Special Purpose Financial Reports” . These were audited accounts prepared in a form to enable HJPL to comply with the requirements of the Corporations Law and were in the correct form of accounts for subsidiaries.

On 29 November 1994, Power, on Driscoll’s instructions, wrote to Butler in the following terms: “I forwarded the copy of the financial statements you gave me recently in Perth to … Driscoll in Miami. While these are a help, there are still gaps in the information as we noted might potentially be the case during our meeting. At this stage … I would like to address exactly what the Burger King financial approval process is and what it entails, so that you have a full understanding of why all this information is being sought. You would be aware that every time a franchisee applies for a new franchise to open an additional restaurant, they must first be reviewed for legal, financial and operational approval. … … Financial approval is based on assessment of certain ratios, including the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (FCC) and the Debt to Equity ratio (D:E). FCC must be a minimum of 1.15:1 or higher. D:E must be a maximum of 1.5:1 or less. I attach an explanation of how they are respectively calculated. … there is no data in regard to the debt liability or repayment terms of the franchisee organization, no interest expense, no depreciation/amortization , nor rent or lease costs either on land, buildings or equipment. I note your comments in your letter to her in regard to cash flows and borrowings, but this does not resolve the requirement for her to assess the debt status of your organization and calculate the D:E ratio, as well as the FCC ratio. We essentially need you to provide [this] appropriate data that will allow her to make all her calculations. I have belabored (sic) this matter intentionally, as it is very important for a franchisor organization to regularly verify the financial status of its expanding franchisees for obvious reasons. This verification in regard to Hungry Jack’s, has not been done for some time and will be done a minimum of once or possibly twice per annum going forward.”

In response to Power’s letter, Butler provided further information on 5 December 1994, by precise reference to the components in the calculation of the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio and the Debt to Equity Ratio advised by Power in his letter. The components of that calculation are set out in the Schedule of Facts.

Rolfe J found that BKC was not entitled to the information sought by Driscoll in her letter of 14 October 1994, holding that “it went beyond [the information] contemplated by the Development Agreement or the Guidelines” .

The Guidelines referred to by Rolfe J were Development Guidelines which the parties were discussing in 1993 as part of a proposed Corporate Plan. They do not appear to have been finalised and BKC was asserting a right to much wider financial information than HJPL was prepared to offer.

However, considering the matter from the basis of the requirements of the Development Agreement, contrary to his Honour’s conclusion, we consider the information sought by Driscoll in October/November 1994 was within the range contemplated by the Development Agreement.

That brings us back to the Capitalisation Plan. It was one of the standard form documents required to be submitted as part of an application for a new franchise agreement. Relevantly, it provided that BKC was entitled, amongst other things, to have regard to “any other factor which affects the [applicant’s] financial strength” . We agree that that provision enabled BKC to look beyond an applicant’s standard accounts and to seek additional information if it appeared there were matters which affected the applicant’s financial strength. HJPL’s inter-company loan provides an example. If an item such as that in the accounts raised a genuine question which required the provision of additional information to answer it, BKC could, under this provision, require that to be provided. Whether BKC was entitled to information such as “the full consolidated, detailed P & L and balance sheet for the entire family of companies” and the disclosure notes and auditor’s report for the Competitive Foods group, as it sought here, is a matter which would need to be assessed in any given circumstance.

We are not convinced on the facts here that BKC was entitled to the extensive information it sought over the period October 1995 to February/March 1996 in relation to Competitive Foods, although if it was entitled to conduct an annual review, we consider it would have been entitled to the accounts as sought in Power’s letter of 1 September 1995. However, we prefer to base our conclusion on another ground. If BKC was entitled to the accounts and the other financial material it sought relating to the Competitive Foods group, it was only entitled to it as part of the process of approving a particular application for a franchise agreement. This is clear from the terms of cl 4.1.

We are of the opinion that BKC did not seek the information in that context. The initial request for financial information was sought for an “annual review” . Although HJPL did lodge applications for expansion at this time, the correspondence clearly reveals that the requests for financial information, including the later expanded requests for the accounts for the Competitive Foods group, were not made in the context of those applications.

That leaves the question whether cl 4.1(b) entitled BKC to the information it sought. Clause 4.1(b) is easily divisible into three parts. First, it required that HJPL had performed and was performing all terms and conditions of each individual franchise agreement.

BKC submitted that this part of the clause extended to all terms and conditions and not only financial terms and conditions of each franchise agreement. We do not agree. Its context makes it clear that the clause relates to financial terms and conditions. BKC proceeded with its submission that it did not matter for its purposes whether this part of the clause was restricted to financial terms. Nor did it rely on this part of the clause to justify its claim to seek the financial information it did.

Secondly, HJPL was not to be in default of any of its money obligations to BKC. There was no allegation it was.

The third part of the clause is an acknowledgment and agreement by HJPL “that it is vital to BKC’s interests that a Franchisee be financially sound to avoid a business failure affecting the reputation and good name of Burger King Marks” . BKC submitted that the construction of this part of cl 4.1(b) and the requirement to submit the then current Capitalisation Plan, established that in exercising the discretion to grant or withhold financial approval, BKC was entitled to seek the information it did, including the extensive information for the group. It was submitted that “[a]ll of this information was critical to an assessment of the financial soundness of HJPL” .

There are immediate difficulties with this construction for BKC’s case. In the first place, we have concluded that the Capitalisation Plan was part of the process of approval of a franchise application. The financial disapproval was imposed generally and not as part of that process.

Rolfe J held that the third part of cl 4.1(b): “is an acknowledgment and agreement by HJPL of the significance of ‘a franchisee’ being ‘financially sound’, which adds point to the necessity to comply with the requirements in the first sentence, but which does not, on the view I consider is preferable as a matter of construction, impose any further obligations on HJPL or the franchisee. This construction is reinforced, at least to a not insubstantial extent, by the first sentence of clause 7.1.”

We agree with his Honour that the third part of cl 4.1(b) does not have independent contractual content. However, with respect to his Honour, we think his reasoning is too confined, if, as we think cl 4.1 should be construed, the grant of financial approval is one of the processes which related to the approval of franchise applications. On that premise, we consider that the third part of cl 4.1(b) “adds point to” , as his Honour put it, or underscores, not only the need for compliance with the financial requirements of the franchise agreements and HJPL’s money obligations to BKC, but also the requirements of, inter alia, the Capitalisation Plan, which encompasses the broader matters to which we have referred.

We consider, therefore, that BKC’s submission that: “[w]hilst it may be true that the Development Agreement did not contain a provision [that prohibited HJPL from expanding unless it submits annual, audited financial statements which show that it is in compliance with BKC’s financial requirements for expansion], it is submitted that these are the very types of financial statements which are referred to in the Capitalisation Plan … which plan is referred to in the Development Agreement. The finding was therefore unjustified” misses the point.

BKC either had a right to conduct an annual review or it did not. There was no express right to do so. It was not argued that such a right should be implied, nor could it be. The right to be able to require certain information and the circumstances in which the information may be required are quite distinct matters. BKC’s submission fails to recognise that distinction.

Accordingly, although for reasons which differ to some extent from Rolfe J’s, we consider that his Honour’s conclusion that there was no contractual entitlement to the information BKC was seeking, was correct.

It follows that as BKC was not entitled, as a matter of contract, to financially disapprove HJPL on 12 September 1995, HJPL must succeed on this issue.

We also consider that BKC was in breach of the Development Agreement for another reason. No date was specified in the letter of 1 September 1995 by which the information was to be supplied. In withdrawing financial approval on 12 September 1995, BKC only gave HJPL nine clear days or six working days to respond. This was unreasonably short and constituted a breach of the implied obligation of reasonableness, even if BKC had some right to disapprove in the manner it did. We should point out that HJPL did not rely on this specific point in its submissions. Rather, its submissions focussed on BKC’s conduct as a whole as constituting a breach of the implied terms of good faith and reasonableness. As considerable attention was given to this issue on the hearing of the appeal, we propose to examine it in some detail. In doing so, we acknowledge BKC’s position that this issue only becomes relevant if it is unsuccessful on its appeal in relation to operational disapproval. However, as our consideration of Montgomery’s role indicates, the “good faith” issue involves BKC’s conduct commencing from before the time it imposed the third party freeze. Financial disapproval was the second step of a process whereby HJPL’s ability to expand was affected and we consider it in that context.

In December 1994, Driscoll gave financial approval for a 12 month period in respect of the 28 sites she was then considering and to which we have referred earlier. No questions were raised as to its financial viability at that time. During the first part of 1995, BKC was actively considering ways of repositioning itself in the Australian market. It needed to minimise or even remove HJPL’s presence to achieve its objective. It was also seeking ways of pursuing its relationship with Shell without HJPL’s involvement.

In March 1995, Montgomery had begun communicating confidentially with Power and Miolla. During the course of a series of telephone calls, facsimiles and e-mails over the following months, Montgomery provided information to BKC about every issue which concerned the parties’ dealings, including HJPL’s financial position and its financial and commercial vulnerability. He both suggested specific deals and reported on Cowin’s reaction, or expected reaction, to a range of options which BKC had proposed to Cowin or had under consideration. He also made tactical suggestions as to how and when to both pressure and assuage Cowin.

In the earliest of these communications, which occurred in late March 1995 during the course of the Shell discussions, Montgomery indicated to BKC that HJPL was experiencing financial difficulties which “will cause [Cowin] to be more amenable to a reasonable deal scenario in his mind” .

Montgomery continued throughout April to provide similar information. On 11 April 1995, he told BKC that by July 1995 HJPL would be unable to engage in further development and that BKC would want to capitalise on HJPL’s difficult financial position.

Then, on 18 April 1995, Montgomery suggested that rather than approach Cowin at that time to seek some form of buy out, a preferable approach would be to conduct a “structured review of Burger King/Hungry Jack’s future strategies and issues in Australia” , including HJPL’s pending applications for 45 new sites.

Montgomery began expanding upon the financial information he was giving to BKC. For example, in late June 1995, he discussed the “worsening financial situation of [Cowin’s] businesses” generally.

The possibility of financial disapproval first arose in an internal BKC memorandum from Miolla to Power on 29 June 1995. At that time, BKC was considering whether and how to block a proposal by HJPL to open at a BP site. The opening of a site at a rival petrol station outlet would have had repercussions for BKC’s proposals regarding Shell. Based on the financial information being provided by Montgomery, BKC believed that HJPL was in a difficult financial state. It was also aware through Montgomery that Cowin was considering legal action in relation to the Development Agreement. Against that background, Miolla sent an email to Power advising that BKC could “probably disapprove HJPL on both financial and operational bases” . However, he conceded in cross-examination that he could not recall whether, as at 29 June 1995, BKC had any basis for financially disapproving HJPL. Certainly it had no formal information from HJPL which would have enabled it to conclude that HJPL did not meet BKC’s financial requirements.

On 16 July 1995, Montgomery advised Miolla that HJPL’s financial situation was becoming critical. He again suggested the steps BKC should take to achieve its aim of buying out HJPL, advising that a “carrot and stick” approach would be necessary. He provided an assessment of HJPL’s current situation, including a state by state survey. He made specific proposals as to “a deal I think could work” . He advised that BKC should request financial results for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, both system wide and state by state. Montgomery also emphasised the importance of timing in BKC’s dealings with HJPL.

BKC had a meeting with HJPL on 4 August 1995 in which Miolla put forward proposals which were very similar to those proposed by Montgomery in his 16 July 1995 memorandum. In particular, BKC adopted the proposal suggested by Montgomery that a new company be set up to operate in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, with BKC to maintain operational control and to have 51% of the shareholding. However, on 30 or 31 August 1995, Cowin advised Miolla he was not interested in having BKC buy into HJPL. Miolla responded by informing Cowin that the “relationship is now going to change” .

The next two events, Power’s letter of 1 September 1995 and Miolla’s letter of 12 September 1995, are ones to which we have already referred. In his letter of 1 September 1995 Power requested financial information from HJPL for the purpose of “the annual review” . The terms of the letter are important. It stated: “Now that June 30, 1995 has passed, we would like to perform the annual financial review of Hungry Jack’s Australia Pty Ltd. In this regard, we need to receive a copy of the P&L and balance sheet as well as details of all debt held by this company. Such debt details should indicate the nature of each debt in term of the debtor, repayment terms and applicable interest rate(s). Would you kindly send this data direct to Ms Yolanda Coffman at Burger King Corporation Miami.” Coffman was an analyst in BKC’s Finance Group in Miami.

Power had no role in the financial department. He said he wrote the letter of 1 September 1995 because about eight to ten months previously, when the 1994 financial approvals were being processed in relation to the pending applications for expansion, he said he had asked: “… I think Stephanie Driscoll, ‘how often do you want to receive this data for the purposes of doing the reviews?’ and she said ‘once per year’.”

Power said he did not recall whether he had diarised the matter so as to routinely request financial information on 1 September 1995. However, he had advised Butler in November 1994 that “regular financial reviews would be undertaken” .

On 5 September 1995, Montgomery advised Miolla that material was being prepared and would be ready in one to two weeks. Miolla’s letter of 12 September 1995 advising HJPL that it was financially disapproved was sent a week after receiving Montgomery’s advice.

In between those two dates, on 8 September 1995, Power had forwarded the site package for Broadway to Jeannie Serra. Serra was the franchise co-ordinator in the Development Group. In his covering memorandum to Serra, Power said that HJPL “still owes BKC (Yolanda [Coffman]) a copy of their year-end financial data which was requested [on 1 September 1995]” .

This series of correspondence directs attention to the question as to who was responsible for financial disapproval. Miolla, in his letter of 5 October 1995, during the course of the financial disapproval process advised Cowin that Gooden was the person responsible for financial approval for expansion. The evidence certainly revealed that, along with Miolla, Gooden took an active role in the financial disapproval process. However, Gooden did not give evidence in the proceedings.

In his evidence, Power said that Miolla took the decision that BKC would not process the applications HJPL had lodged at that time, that is September 1995, until the “next financial approval was in place” . Miolla said that financial matters were not “within [his] area at all” .

Driscoll filed a statement in August 1999, (at an advanced stage in the hearing of the proceedings), stating that she was the person who had the discretion to financially disapprove for expansion. She reiterated in her cross-examination that she was the person with authority to financially disapprove HJPL. She said that Gooden was her superior and she kept him informed as to what was happening. She said, however, that HJPL had been financially disapproved in connection with applications for new site approval.

Power, in his evidence, took responsibility for the letter of 1 September 1995 in the circumstances to which we have referred.

Driscoll in her evidence thought she was responsible both for the content of the letter of 1 September and for it being sent. However, the terms of the letter of 1 September 1995 bear no resemblance to the task Driscoll thought she was undertaking. The reason given in the letter as to why financial information was being sought was for the purposes of “the annual financial review” . Driscoll asserted in her evidence that when, on 1 September 1995, she had sought financial information from HJPL, it was done in the context of her consideration of financial approval for the Myaree, Bolivar and Broadway sites. That could not have been correct as the site packages for Myaree and Broadway were not forwarded to BKC until 4 September 1995. Bolivar was forwarded on 20 September 1995. The site package for Hurstville was also forwarded on that day.

According to the letter of 12 September 1995, HJPL was disapproved for failure to provide the information requested on 1 September 1995, to enable the annual review to be undertaken. Driscoll did not see a copy of Power’s letter of 8 September to Serra in which Power contended that HJPL “owed” financial information for the annual review, and did not think Coffman was involved in the process of assessing whether or not HJPL should be financially approved, unless she was “lend[ing] a hand” . Coffman was not called to give evidence.

Miolla, who was the author of the 12 September letter, said he believed that annual reviews were done “as an accommodation to some of the large franchisees” , as opposed to doing a review each time a new application was made. However, he really knew nothing about the practice. HJPL had never previously been subjected to an annual review, although there was the evidence of BKC’s intention to commence to do so. However, the timing here is quite critical. Although Miolla asserted that he believed the request was made to tie in with BKC's end of financial year, the letter of 1 September 1995 was expressly directed to HJPL’s end of financial year. Even more critical, in our opinion, is that it followed within a day or two of Cowin’s rejection of BKC’s 4 August 1995 proposal, to which Miolla had responded “the relationship is now going to change” .

Driscoll remained adamant that BKC was not undertaking annual reviews at the time of the letter of 1 September 1995 and that she was not conducting a financial review for BKC for “any purpose [other] than an expansion request which came across my desk” . She was asked: “Q Irrespective of expansion, was it your understanding, Mrs Driscoll, that Hungry Jack’s required some form of financial approval each year? A Financial approval is given in connection with expansion, so they come in and ask to build a site, we grant approval for that site.”

That evidence is particularly significant, as it appears that BKC was engaging in two quite separate processes at this time - an annual financial review, which Power and possibly Miolla had decided to undertake, and financial approval relating to applications for new sites. It is possible that Driscoll, the person put forward by BKC at the hearing as having responsibility for financial approval, was not aware, at least initially, that BKC was purporting to carry out an annual review. This might explain why Driscoll did not receive a copy of Power’s 8 September 1995 letter to Serra, which made express reference to the annual review, although she said it was correspondence she would have expected to receive. It might also explain why she did not have any real knowledge of Coffman’s role, which Driscoll surmised, in her evidence, could have been “to lend a hand” . That is not, however, the nature of Coffman’s task as conveyed by Power’s memorandum to Serra.

Furthermore, Driscoll did not become aware until late September 1995 that HJPL had a small operating loss of approximately $81,000 for the financial year 1995. That was the matter which Driscoll said was, for her, “the huge red flag which came up” . However, HJPL was already financially disapproved by then.

There is, therefore, considerable force in the trial judge’s observation at paragraph 497 that: “The odd thing about BKC’s approach, which, in my opinion, is only explicable because of the attitude BKC was taking to HJPL, is that the financial disapproval preceded the receipt of the various information, rather than followed an analysis of it and the exercise of the discretion based on that analysis.”

However, we do not agree that the facts bear out the next part of his Honour’s comment: “As will appear, the matters Mrs Driscoll regarded as a ‘red rag’(sic) and which she used to try to justify her concerns was never one she took up with any officer of HJPL and particularly, Mr Cowin or Mr Butler. She sought no direct explanation for the turn around in the profits.”

As the schedule of facts reveal, Miolla expressly referred to the operating loss in his letter of 5 October 1995 to Cowin. The matter was also discussed at the meetings that Cowin had with Miolla, Gooden and Driscoll in Miami on 26 and 27 October 1995. Further, Butler was requested to provide an explanation for the fall in the operating profits in BKC’s letter of 27 October. He responded by letter dated 6 November 1995. Driscoll did not, however, follow up on that explanation.

Even Driscoll’s concerns about the “operating loss” must be put in context. Driscoll conceded that despite HJPL’s operating loss, she had observed from the accounts that HJPL had both “positive retained earnings” from the previous year of $1.6 million and “positive net assets” of $16 million. She was also aware that HJPL’s non current liabilities of $45 million was an inter-company debt. Although she advised Miolla that because of the operating loss she did not see how HJPL could meet “our cash flow and fixed charge coverage requirements” , she conceded in cross-examination that she did not have all the information to enable her to determine whether, in fact, that was the case.

Driscoll was then cross-examined: “Q You decided to proceed on the basis that you wouldn’t give financial approval until such time as you were satisfied. A That’s the basis of all financial approval. I have to be satisfied that they are financially healthy, and until I review the financial statements and I’m satisfied they meet the ratios, then no, we don’t proceed.”

It was clear from this and the evidence generally on this issue that the primary focus in determining whether or not to financially approve was whether BKC’s ratios were complied with. For example, Driscoll said in cross-examination: “… the goal of the financial approval is to determine and understand the franchisee’s financial ability to expand, and the fixed charge coverage ratio and the debt to equity ratio are the primary ratios that we look at …”

However, it was apparent on the evidence that the financial ratios which BKC was applying to HJPL were different to those which it had advised in December 1994 were the applicable ratios. Driscoll recognised this in late December 1995, and again in May 1996, a matter she raised in her memorandum to Miolla and Gooden of 28 May 1996.

On 2 October 1995, shortly after Butler forwarded the 1995 accounts, Montgomery advised Miolla that a confrontation with Cowin sooner rather than later would be inevitable and that BKC should look at Competitive Foods, which, he noted, BKC had not done previously.

Miolla wrote to Cowin on 5 October 1995, advising that HJPL’s operating loss meant that it was impossible for it to satisfy BKC’s cash flow and fixed charge coverage requirements. He said that BKC could not determine whether the debt as a percentage of total capitalisation ratio had been satisfied without further financial information. He added “we will not be approving expansion at any additional sites until we have a better understanding of the financial issues” . Driscoll, who also accepted responsibility for the terms of the letter, conceded in cross examination that the statement in relation to the operating loss was “too strong” .

The letter of 5 October 1995 was copied to Montgomery. Although Miolla denied this was to keep Montgomery “in the loop” , he did not provide any explanation as to why he did so. Montgomery was not responsible for the provision of financial information to BKC. That was Butler’s responsibility, although Cowin, on occasions during this time, assumed direct responsibility for dealing with BKC. For example, Cowin replied to the 5 October letter, by letter dated 11 October 1995, in which he asserted that HJPL did in fact meet both the fixed charge coverage and the debt to equity ratios. Driscoll accepted in cross-examination that the material provided by Cowin on 11 October 1995 complied with the request made in Miolla’s letter of 5 October 1995. She also accepted that on the analysis that Butler had provided with the information the ratios had been satisfied. However, she said that she was not prepared to accept Butler’s analysis. She was asked in cross-examination: “Q Why was it that, having asked for this information from Mr Butler, or causing Mr Miolla to ask for this information, you weren’t prepared to accept it? A Because there is a huge red flag that came up and that was the loss. The turnaround in profit between ’94 and ’95 told me I should go back and understand these accounts better, understand what was happening, understand all of the allocations that Mr Butler was using and why he was doing it, and that I needed not to just accept Mr Butler’s representations but to review the financial statements and come to the conclusions on my own.”

Driscoll added that whilst she had no basis to doubt Butler, her job was to verify the information.

The next step occurred on 18 October 1995. Miolla again wrote to Cowin and said that BKC was having “a hard time understanding the financial information due to the limited nature of the balance sheet and the absence of a profit and loss statement” . He raised three major areas of concern: (i) the loss of $1.6 million in cash flow between 1994 and 1995; (ii) BKC’s inability to understand the liabilities of HJPL without more information on inter-company loans and leases; and (iii) the question of the pledge of HJPL’s assets to secure repayment of a $49.5 million loan from the bank to the parent company. He noted that the calculations provided by HJPL had apportioned that loan, “pro-rata” , between HJPL and other companies in the group, which, he commented understated the contingent liability of HJPL. He stated: “In order to determine the likelihood that the full contingent liability would come due, we need to examine the full, consolidated, detailed P & L and balance sheet for the entire family of companies.”

It had only taken Miolla just over two weeks to act in the precise way Montgomery had suggested in his advice of 2 October 1995. Miolla continued: “We will not be able to grant any further expansion approvals unless we can get the information necessary to deal with the issues set forth … above.”

Notwithstanding the stance taken in this letter, and without the provision of any further information, Gooden had formed the opinion by 20 October 1995, that HJPL satisfied BKC’s financial requirements.

This apparently caused Power some concern as he emailed Miolla and Hothorn on the same date. He said: “While I understand the conclusions drawn by … Gooden et al regarding probable compliance with our FCC ratio and DE ratio, don’t overlook the statement included in our Section B ‘Financial Analysis’ in the Management, Ownership and Capitalisation Plan … In our overall assessment of the condition and quality of operations of the franchisee (HJPL), we would appear to have some discretion to still disapprove the franchisee financially for expansion purposes. [For your information] … Horowitz also advised last night that it would appear that HJPL will be disapproved for expansion operationally on [15 November].”

Power denied that, in this email, he was advocating that HJPL be financially disapproved. However, at that time, he was expecting to receive 60 to 70 TRAs from Shell, eight of which related to test sites, the balance being “serious requests for 20 year franchise agreements” together with approximately $US300,000 as TRA deposits. Power agreed in cross-examination that Shell was “pretty important” to BKC’s “future in the Australian market” .

Montgomery advised Miolla on 23 October 1995 that Cowin was definitely of the view that HJPL met BKC’s ratios. By 24 October Driscoll had independently reached a similar conclusion, although she remained concerned that she was dealing with unaudited accounts and reached her conclusion by making certain assumptions, particularly in respect of the inter-company loans referred to in the accounts.

The evidence that both Gooden and Driscoll (even with the reservations she had) believed the ratios had been met, supports his Honour’s conclusion that by October 1995, BKC had concluded that HJPL probably complied with its financial requirements. His Honour noted that notwithstanding this, financial approval continued to be withheld. Driscoll said she took this position because she decided that there should be no approval of future sites until she had more complete financial information including that of the Competitive Foods Group. This was, of course, a shift in the task Driscoll initially asserted she was undertaking. It was also a shift in her original evidence that financial approval and disapproval was given in respect of a particular application.

Driscoll was asked: “Q [HJPL were] generally disapproved otherwise; correct? A Yeah, it’s a question of semantics, if you will. Everybody is disapproved for sites until they specifically ask for approval for a site. I wasn’t - my message to Hungry Jack’s is I did not want to consider more sites; please don’t come back and ask for more sites and ask me to grant exception approval for more sites until you give me the financial information I have been requesting all along. That was my position, and I’d compromised a couple of times already with them.”

This conduct was unprecedented. It was neither an annual review of the type Miolla asserted was done to accommodate larger franchisees nor was it a site specific review. In effect, it was the imposition of another ‘freeze’. Fitzjohn recognised this when he agreed in cross-examination that the letter of 20 September 1995 prevented further development by HJPL unless BKC made exceptions.

On 26 October 1995, after a meeting with Driscoll, Miolla and Cowin, Gooden again sought information in regard to the consolidated accounts of Competitive Foods.

At a meeting the following day, when Cowin continued to protest that there was no basis for BKC to continue to financially disapprove HJPL, Miolla advised him that there would be no operational approval for expansion as from 18 November 1995, even if the financial issues were resolved.

On 1 November 1995, Montgomery forwarded to Power Competitive Foods’ internal accounts, as well as the working accounts for KFC and Domino’s Pizza. Power forwarded these on to Gooden with a direction they were for internal use only and no mention was to be made to HJPL that it had the information.

Driscoll did not receive these accounts until about mid-December 1995. Nor did she receive a copy of Power’s accompanying email. She believed, even up to the time of giving evidence, that the information had come officially from HJPL.

On 8 November 1995, Fitzjohn again sought Competitive Foods’ financial information. When doing so he did not inform HJPL that he already had extensive financial information for the Group in his possession. We pause to comment that the financial information it had far exceeded what BKC should have had on any view of its entitlement under the Development Agreement. Power conceded as much in cross-examination.

The stalemate over financial approval continued through November and December 1995, during which time HJPL continued to provide financial information as required. For example, we have already referred to BKC’s letter of 26 October 1995, which Butler responded to on 6 November 1995, explaining that the main reason for the fall in gross profit was discounting which had occurred in that financial year. Driscoll accepted that Butler’s response had been a full answer to BKC’s letter of 26 October. She said that Butler’s information raised a number of questions for her. However, she did not follow up her concerns with Butler or with anyone else. She conceded that she could have made enquiries of Power to verify what Butler was asserting.

On 29 December 1995, Cowin again sought confirmation that the financial issues had been resolved and that financial approval had been granted. Miolla responded on 8 January 1996, stating that BKC still needed the consolidated financial package.

There was, however, no basis for BKC to keep pressing for further information. We have already referred to Rolfe J’s finding that by October 1995 BKC had concluded HJPL had complied with its financial requirements. Although BKC challenged the finding on the appeal, it was clearly open on the evidence and BKC’s challenge to it must fail.

Even Driscoll conceded that by 23 February 1996, the material in her possession “was sufficient on any view to grant financial approval” . Yet financial approval continued to be withheld.

BKC accepted in its submissions to this Court, that by May 1996 it had reached the position internally where it considered that all financial criteria necessary for financial approval had been satisfied. It did not convey that to HJPL. It justified its stance in not doing so because, it said, exception approvals had been granted for all restaurants applied for, no further restaurants had been applied for, and in any event, HJPL was operationally disapproved at the time.

The foregoing demonstrates a number of things. First, BKC asserted a right to conduct an annual financial review when it had no right to do so.

Secondly, BKC’s conduct at this time could not properly be characterised as an annual financial review of HJPL. At least by late October/early November 1995, the analysis had shifted to an investigation of the Competitive Foods Group, as evidenced by the fact that, commencing from Fitzjohn’s letter of 8 November 1995, no further requests were made in relation to HJPL’s accounts. All enquiries and requests related to the Competitive Foods Group. However, even if BKC was conducting an annual financial review and such review was permitted by the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement did not authorise withdrawal of financial approval pending completion of the review.

Next, BKC’s failure to grant financial approval after the time it had assessed HJPL as having complied with its ratios, was a breach of the implied term of good faith. There are three possible dates at which BKC had concluded that there was compliance with the ratios. Rolfe J found that it had reached this conclusion in October 1995. That finding was clearly open to his Honour on the evidence. Driscoll conceded in cross-examination that that assessment had been made by February 1996. During the course of the appeal, senior counsel for BKC conceded that as at 28 May 1996 HJPL was entitled to be financially approved.

Many of BKC’s actions relating to financial disapproval followed closely on the information supplied or suggestions made by Montgomery. The decision to financially disapprove was taken at a time when BKC was actively seeking ways to either buy out HJPL or otherwise take a much larger stake in the Australian market. When Cowin refused to co-operate he was told, bluntly, that “the relationship is now going to change” .

In our opinion, the evidence clearly establishes that BKC’s conduct is properly characterised as being directed not to furthering its legitimate rights under the Development Agreement but to preventing HJPL from performing its obligations under the Development Agreement. As Rolfe J put it: In the end, I am forced to the conclusion that it was in pursuance of a deliberate plan to prevent HJPL expanding, and to enable BKC to develop the Australian market unhindered by its contractual arrangements with HJPL.”

We agree with this conclusion.

BKC submitted, however, that his Honour’s finding as to bad faith could not be sustained as HJPL had failed to establish that the decision maker, Driscoll, was motivated by bad faith or was influenced by those whom his Honour held to have been motivated by bad faith. ‘Those’ persons were, in particular, Miolla, Fitzjohn and Power.

We do not think it matters that his Honour made no express finding in relation to Driscoll, although we note that he expressed scepticism about the manner in which she pursued her task (see especially para 497). It is the conduct of BKC which is relevant. In any event, his Honour did not find that Driscoll was responsible for BKC’s decision to financially disapprove, conveyed to HJPL in Miolla’s letter of 12 September 1995, nor is there any evidence that she did make that decision. The evidence points to Miolla as the decision maker. The evidence of BKC’s conduct overall clearly supports his Honour’s conclusion that BKC acted in bad faith, a conclusion which we consider to be correct.

BKC’s final submission on the good faith issue was that his Honour: “[D]id not measure up against his findings in relation to Messrs Miolla, Hothorn, Fitzjohn and Power in relation to the following matters: (a) that the responsibility was Ms Driscolls’ and Ms Driscolls’ alone and no-one told her to apply different standards; (b) the Finance Department within Burger King was a ‘separate business silo’; (c) financial disapproval arose in the context of an actual application which required exercise of the contractual discretion because the previous financial approval did not cover the sites which had been applied for in September 1995 and, in any event, exception approval was granted. His Honour failed to consider how he could find the existence of bad faith in circumstances where each site applied for was granted an exception approval and within a short period of time; (d) the concerns expressed by Ms Driscoll were legitimate and based on the material received by her and the documents sought were within the scope of the documents to which she was entitled to have access pursuant to the Development Agreement; (e) there is an(sic) legitimate explanation for the contrast in approach between 1994 and 1995, which explanation appears above; …”

We have already dealt with most of these matters. We would only add that the grant of exception approvals does not neutralise BKC’s conduct which we consider was in breach of its implied obligations of reasonableness and good faith.

Rolfe J was, therefore, correct in holding that the withdrawal of financial disapproval was in breach of BKC’s contractual obligations of good faith and reasonableness. In coming to this conclusion we have not fully endorsed the facts as found by his Honour and accept BKC’s submission that some of his findings were wrong. For example, contrary to his Honour’s finding, HJPL were advised that BKC was concerned about the operating loss of $81,000. However, those matters do not affect our view as to the correctness of his Honour’s conclusion. Operational Disapproval

HJPL was operationally disapproved by BKC for further expansion on 27 November 1995. That position was not reversed until after the delivery of judgment in the court below.

Rolfe J found that BKC was not entitled, on the facts upon which it purported to act, to operationally disapprove HJPL. His Honour also found, for the same reasons he gave in relation to financial disapproval, that BKC did not act reasonably and in good faith in withholding operational approval. In essence, this was a finding that the withdrawal of operational approval was part of the BKC’s deliberate plan to prevent HJPL expanding and to enable BKC to develop unhindered by its contractual arrangements with HJPL.

BKC disputes these findings. BKC submitted alternatively that even if his Honour was correct in finding that BKC was not entitled to disapprove for the reasons given in its letter of 27 November 1995, HJPL was, in any event, in breach of BKC’s operational requirements so that it was entitled to act as it did: see Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Pty Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359.

Operational approval was withdrawn from HJPL by Blauer, who, on the evidence, was the only person authorised to do so. Blauer did not give evidence in the proceedings.

In his letter of 27 November 1995 advising HJPL that they had been operationally disapproved, Blauer stated: “Reference is made to the November 13, 1990 Development Agreement between Hungry Jack’s Pty. Ltd. (“HJPL”) and Burger King Corporation (“BKC”). Further reference is made to BKC’s worldwide policy (the “Expansion Policy”) regarding minimal operational standards necessary to expand within the system (the “Operational Expansion Criteria”), which we delivered to HJPL at the beginning of the year. … Pursuant to the terms of Section 4.1(a), BKC has the authority to refuse to approve any expansion by HJPL if HJPL fails to comply with the terms of a single franchise agreement. Notwithstanding this requirement, BKC has, without waiving its right to impose this standard in the future, agreed at this time to treat HJPL consistent with the less restrictive provisions of the Expansion Policy . As you know, the Expansion Policy provides that a franchisee’s eligibility for restaurant expansion in the Burger King system is dependent upon, among other things, operational performance pursuant to the terms of each franchise agreement. Pursuant to the Expansion Policy, HJPL was the subject of an operational assessment to determine its expandability in accordance with the Operational Expansion Criteria. As part of this assessment, each restaurant was categorized into one of the three groups: ‘Superior’, ‘Satisfactory’, or ‘Needs Improvement’. These characterizations were based on many factors, including Franchise Manager (‘FM’) and Operations Trainer (‘OT’) visits. As you know, Terry Horowitz met with Malcolm Green early in 1995 to communicate the status of the HJPL restaurants and to work with HJPL to formulate a ‘Franchise Action Plan’ as provided in the Expansion Policy. The purpose of the Franchise Action Plan was to provide HJPL with input regarding actions which were required to move restaurants from the Needs Improvement category into the Satisfactory or Superior category. As you know, [Green] originally requested less than a month to complete the Franchise Action Plan, but at the urging of Terry Horowitz the Plan was increased to a total of more than eight months, ending on November 15, 1995. Pursuant to the Expansion Policy, each restaurant was evaluated on an ongoing basis through FM visitations, detailed OT visitations, and average Mystery Shop scores. When the Franchise Action Plan was initiated, there were approximately 36 HJPL restaurants in the Needs Improvement category. At the end of the Franchise Action Plan, there were still a total of 31 restaurants in the Needs Improvement category. A summary of the major issues at these 31 restaurants is enclosed. Pursuant to the Expansion Policy, a franchisee may not expand if it has more than 10% of its restaurants in the Needs Improvement category. HJPL has more than 20% of its restaurants in the Needs Improvement category and is, therefore, in violation of both the Expansion Policy and the more restrictive provisions of Section 4.1(a) of the Development Agreement. Unfortunately, this means that at this time HJPL is not approved for any further expansion.” (emphasis added).

It is apparent from the letter, and in any event the proceedings at first instance were conducted on the basis, that the decision to disapprove was made because of HJPL’s alleged non-compliance with BKC’s Expansion Policy.

BKC submitted that Blauer’s withdrawal of operational approval amounted to an exercise of its discretion under cl 4.1 of the Development Agreement. This submission was directed, first, to meeting HJPL’s case, accepted by Rolfe J, that the facts necessary for BKC to exercise the discretion on the basis of non-compliance with the Expansion Policy had not been made out, and, secondly, as the basis for its alternative submission that upon the application of the principle in Shepherd v Felt & Textiles there were other facts which would have entitled it to disapprove.

Blauer’s decision to operationally disapprove was based upon information supplied by Horowitz, BKC’s franchise manager for Australia and New Zealand, as to the number of restaurants classified as “Needs Improvement” . Neither Blauer nor Horowitz gave evidence in the proceedings.

Horowitz had prepared a schedule for each restaurant said to be in that category (the Horowitz schedules). Those schedules were attached to Blauer’s letter. The schedules were dated from 27 October through to 1 November 1995 and said to be in respect of the “Needs Improvement Issues” of the particular restaurant. Except for the schedule for the restaurant at Fulham, the schedules were said to be based upon “the most recent visit” to the store in question. The date of that visit was not specified. The schedule for Fulham was stated to be a “Recap of issues in Needs Improvement Restaurants” and the date of the last visit was stated to be 24 August 1995.

The classification as “Needs Improvement” derived from BKC’s Expansion Policy referred to by Blauer in his letter. Under the Expansion Policy, franchised restaurants were categorised as “Superior” , “Satisfactory” and “Needs Improvement” . The Policy set out BKC’s established “guidelines for operational approval” : “if a franchisee has more than 10 restaurants, no more than 10% of a franchisees restaurants can fall within the ‘Needs Improvement’ category.”

Restaurants were to be reviewed for re-categorisation on a semi-annual basis, although a restaurant could be moved to a lower level at any monthly meeting of the franchise manager and the operational trainers.

An essential feature of the way the Expansion Policy operated as at the date Blauer exercised his discretion was BKC’s Restaurant Visitation Programme. This replaced a “question and answer audit” process which was more objective and less evaluative than the new process. The stated aim of the Visitation Programme was to ensure the continuous improvement in restaurant operations. It required regular inspections by operational trainers and the franchise manager. A target number of visits was specified for each restaurant depending upon the category into which the restaurant was placed. The target for restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category was ten visits per year - six by an operational trainer and four by the franchise manager.

After each visit, if the circumstances required it, an Action Plan was to be prepared and given to the restaurant manager with a copy provided to the franchisee, in this case HJPL, within seven days.

Blauer, in explaining his reasons for withdrawing operational approval in the letter of 27 November 1995, stated that HJPL’s restaurants had been assessed on an operational basis and the result communicated to Green in February 1995. It appears from other evidence that that assessment was made in January 1995 and a schedule prepared at that time classifying all HJPL restaurants (the January classification list). The letter went on to state that another purpose of the meeting in February 1995 was to formulate a Franchise Action Plan to enable steps to be taken to remove restaurants from the “Needs Improvement” category.

The Franchise Action Plan was the specified procedure for this purpose under the Expansion Policy. The Franchise Action Plan, it seems, had another purpose, namely of permitting a franchisee to expand, notwithstanding that three might be restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category. This was also the understanding of the executives within BKC, including Power and Hothorn, as was apparent from internal communications between them in June 1995.

The letter of 27 November 1995 continued: “Pursuant to the Expansion Policy, each restaurant was evaluated on an ongoing basis through FM visitations, detailed OT visitations and average Mystery Shop scores. When the Franchise Action Plan was initiated, there were approximately 36 HJPL restaurants in the Needs Improvement category. At the end of the Franchise Action Plan there were still a total of 31 restaurants in the Needs Improvement category. A summary of the major issues at these 31 restaurants is enclosed.”

None of these assertions was quite accurate. In the letter, Blauer expressly stated that the period of time granted to HJPL to “complete the Action Plan” was “more than 8 months” . He specified the end of that period as being 15 November 1995. That might have been correct if the Franchise Action Plan was provided to HJPL in February 1995. However, although at the meeting in February Horowitz and Green agreed on a nine month time frame in which the “Needs Improvement” category would be reduced to below 10%, BKC did not provide HJPL with the Franchise Action Plan until 5 October 1995.

HJPL therefore only had about seven weeks in which to complete the Plan. This period was impossibly short and, for the substantial part of the nine month time frame, it deprived HJPL of the benefit of BKC’s “input regarding actions which were required to move restaurants” out of the “Needs Improvement” category. As Blauer’s letter said, BKC’s input was the very purpose of the Franchise Action Plan.

There appears to be another inaccuracy in Blauer’s assertion that there were 36 restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category at the commencement of the period. Green said he was never advised, or provided with a list, of the restaurants which had been classified as “Needs Improvement” . That evidence was not challenged or contradicted. Admittedly, Green was aware from time to time from discussions with his own managers that certain restaurants were in the “Needs Improvement” category. That, however, is quite different from being advised of, or provided with a list of, specified restaurants which were to be improved in accordance with a structured plan formulated by BKC. In addition, it was Green’s recollection that he was told there were 27 restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category, not 36. That accords with BKC’s January 1995 classification list. Further, six of the restaurants in Horowitz’s schedules were not on the January classification list, so that about 20% of the restaurants Blauer was relying on would not have been part of the Franchise Action Plan had it been provided in about February 1995. Blauer did not avert to this in his letter.

Blauer’s letter next asserted that pursuant to the Franchise Action Plan each restaurant had been evaluated “on an ongoing basis through FM visitations, detailed OT visitations and average Mystery Shop scores” . However, the evidence revealed that HJPL had scored consistently well on the Mystery Shop scores and only marginally below the worldwide average. HJPL had also scored a couple of percentage points above the Asia-Pacific average.

The reference to the FM and OT visitations was a reference to the Restaurant Visitation Programme. HJPL produced a schedule of visits to the 31 restaurants. The schedule is attached to the Schedule of Facts as Annexure A. That schedule demonstrates that many of the restaurants had not been visited in accordance with the “target” number of visits specified in the Restaurant Visitation Programme. In particular, of the 31 restaurants, 15 had not been visited in the three months prior to 27 November 1995. HJPL had submitted at trial and again before this Court, that this meant either that those restaurants were not in the “Needs Improvement” category or that BKC had not complied with its obligations of co-operation and good faith in carrying out the inspections in accordance with its own policy, so as to enable HJPL to continuously do what was necessary to move a particular restaurant out of the category.

BKC responded to this submission by emphasising that the specification of ten visits a year was expressly stated in the Programme to be the “target” number of visits only. A failure to satisfy the target, did not, on BKC’s submission, have either of the two effects for which HJPL contended.

However, it appears that BKC required the Visitation Programme to be applied strictly. At least this is the position it took in relation to HJPL’s third party franchisees. In May 1995, Honkey, HJPL’s Franchise Operations Manager, was appointed as the person responsible for carrying out the visitation programme in relation to HJPL’s third party franchisees. In providing instructions in relation to this role, Blauer wrote to Cowin on 10 May 1995 as follows: “I would like this new manager to conform to the current BKC standard as it relates to the operations visitation process. This means that he must perform an expanded visitation at all restaurants at a frequency of 2, 4 or 6 times depending on the operating status of the restaurant. These visitations need to be [in] the same form used by our personnel in visitations to HJ restaurants.”

On 14 July 1995, Blauer again wrote to Cowin: “Our agreement is that Warren Honkey will assume the position of franchise manager immediately and begin servicing the franchisees. Warren will be responsible to perform visitations utilising Burger King Corporation’s new visitation form. Warren will conduct visits under the following minimum frequency which is 2 visits for superior restaurants, 4 visits for satisfactory restaurants, and 6 visits for needs improvement restaurants.”

It is possible that in this letter Honkey was directed to carry out a greater number of visits than specified in the Visitation Programme. However, no point about this was taken on the appeal. More importantly for present purposes, Blauer’s directions were not expressed as a goal or target which he was setting. They were mandatory directions.

Further, given the importance BKC placed upon its Expansion Policy and the fundamental importance to HJPL of the right to expand, it follows, as we have already said, that the visitation policy required visits on a regular basis. This was, in our view, also implicit in the instructions Blauer gave to Cowin for Honkey to follow. A franchisee’s position could be untenable otherwise. For example, a restaurant might be visited on a number of consecutive months, and then not visited for a period of say three months. In the ensuing three months the restaurant might be improved so as to enable it to be moved out of the “Needs Improvement” category. However, unless there was a visit proximate to the time of the re-categorisation, it would remain classified, wrongly, according to BKC’s own standards, as “Needs Improvement” .

HJPL’s primary submission on this point was that it followed that as 15 of the restaurants had not been visited in the three months immediately preceding 27 November 1995, they were not, in fact, in the “Needs Improvement” category. His Honour so found. Although that is a finding of fact which was open to his Honour, we prefer to base our decision on this point on BKC’s failure to comply with its own requirements, so as to be in breach of its obligation of co-operation. Alternatively, it was a breach of the implied obligation of good faith for BKC not to visit restaurants regularly and in reasonable compliance with the target number of visits, so as to enable it to obtain the benefits which were intended to be provided by the Programme. Accordingly, in our opinion, BKC was not entitled to rely on those 15 restaurants for the purposes of operational disapproval.

Once these 15 restaurants are removed, the percentage of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category falls below 20%.

That leads directly to BKC’s alternative submission, that on the proper construction of the letter of 27 November 1995, it is apparent that Blauer had exercised his discretion on the basis that HJPL had had more than 10% of its restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category. We do not consider that this is the proper meaning of the letter. In it, Blauer referred first to the minimum circumstance sufficient to trigger the exercise of the discretion to disapprove under the Expansion Policy - “the more than 10%” requirement - and then specified the reason which caused him to exercise his discretion, namely that HJPL had more than 20% of its restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category: “HJPL has more than 20% of its restaurants in the Needs Improvement category and is, therefore, in violation of … the Expansion Policy.”

This was the construction given to the letter by the trial judge. We agree that is the proper construction.

BKC next submitted that even if that is the correct construction, the fact is that HJPL had, as at the date of operational disapproval, failed to comply with the minimum tolerance level specified in the Expansion Policy. Accordingly, there were facts upon which it could rely to operationally disapprove in any event. This submission depends both upon proof of such facts and upon whether the principle in Shepherd v Felt & Textiles applies to circumstances such as these.

The trial judge found against BKC on the factual basis necessary for BKC’s submission to succeed. His Honour did so by considering whether BKC had established on the evidence that there was a proper basis for categorising four of the remaining 16 restaurants as “Needs Improvement” and found that there was not. BKC does not challenge his Honour’s finding on these four restaurants. It submitted, however, that there was evidence to prove that HJPL, in fact, had more than 10% of its restaurants in that category.

BKC first relied upon admissions by Green, HJPL’s Operations Manager, to establish that there were more than 10% of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category.

Green’s admission was based on information supplied and assessments made by Horowitz in October/November 1995. Some of that information and the factual bases which were said to underlie the assessments were under challenge in the proceedings, particularly by Honkey’s detailed analysis of the restaurants alleged by Horowitz in October 1995 to be in the “Needs Improvement” category. Honkey’s evidence on these matters was not met by BKC with evidence of its own, although it challenged Honkey’s analysis in cross examination. In the end result, his Honour found it unnecessary to make findings on that evidence.

Green’s admission was only as good as the information and assessments provided by Horowitz. Horowitz’s assessments were challenged by HJPL and there has been no curial determination of the correctness of Horowitz’s assessment. For that reason, and in circumstances where Honkey’s evidence was not directly contradicted by evidence from BKC, the admission bears little weight. We accept HJPL’s submission that it is an inadequate evidentiary basis upon which to determine a matter as fundamental as this in the proceedings. Further, and as Rolfe J found, the admission was irrelevant because there was no evidence that BKC: “communicated knowledge of the matters of which Mr Green made his admissions to Mr Blauer before he wrote his letter of 27 November 1995, nor that he exercised, or anyone else from BKC exercised, BKC’s discretion on the basis of those admissions.”

BKC also relied upon a further alleged admission by Green that he had advised Cowin that he considered BKC was correct in classifying at least 10% of HJPL’s restaurants as “Needs Improvement” . In cross-examination Green was asked if he remembered having any discussion before the end of January 1996 with Cowin about the stores which had been listed “Needs Improvement” in Blauer’s 27 November 1995 letter. Green had no recollection of any particular discussion with Cowin, nor did he recall telling Cowin that he considered that the classification of at least 10% of the stores in the “Needs Improvement” category was correct. He said that although he could not recall having told Cowin, he was “positive that [he] would have” .

This admission is also of no assistance to BKC, as his Honour found, as there was no evidence Blauer was aware of it.

There are a number of other difficulties with BKC’s reliance on Green’s “admissions” . In contrast to Honkey, Green had not received any training from BKC which would enable him to conduct a restaurant visitation in accordance with the visitation guidelines. Therefore, he was not in the best position to analyse Horowitz’s classifications. Further, Green in his meeting with Horowitz in February 1995, appears to have been given a different understanding of BKC’s standards than Honkey, whose job encompassed the Visitation Programme in respect of third party franchisees. Horowitz had informed Green that a restaurant had to have “no food safety issues” whereas the test put by BKC’s counsel to Honkey in cross-examination was that there was “no ongoing food safety issues” .

Next, BKC sought to prove that HJPL in fact had more than 10% of its restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category. It sought to do so in the following way. First, it resorted to 12 of the 16 restaurants (that is, those left after the 15 had been removed from consideration ) which were not subject to an “adverse” finding by his Honour.

It next sought to prove that in respect of the 15 restaurants, which his Honour rejected as being able to be relied upon, there was evidence from inspections carried out in November/December 1995, or shortly thereafter, which proved that nine of these restaurants had properly been classified as “Needs Improvement” by Horowitz, for the purposes of Blauer’s letter of 27 November 1995.

HJPL submitted that this challenge should not be permitted, and in any event could not be made good. First, it submitted BKC presented no such analysis to the trial judge and it was inappropriate to do so for the first time on appeal. Secondly, it was submitted that it was inappropriate to rely on reports prepared after Blauer’s letter and it was an exercise not conducted at trial. Thirdly, in respect of five of the nine restaurants, Springwood, Ipswich, Carindale, Mackay and Kippa Ring, reliance was placed upon material contained in a statement of a Miss Elizabeth Martin which was not read in the proceedings. Finally, Honkey had expressed the view that none of the nine additional restaurants should properly have been classified as “Needs Improvement” as at November 1995. He was cross-examined only in respect of four of those restaurants.

We consider that BKC should not be permitted to advance this submission. It did not put this basis to the court below. Nor did it tender the relevant evidence. That concludes this issue against BKC.

It is also doubtful whether the challenge, if permitted, could have been made good. In relation to the 12 restaurants which were visited in accordance with the visitation programme, Honkey gave evidence that none of them ought to have been so classified. During cross-examination, his attention was directed to only four of those restaurants. There was, therefore, no challenge to his evidence in relation to eight of them. BKC did not call any evidence to rebut any of Honkey’s evidence. Had his Honour dealt with this evidence, it is possible, and probably likely, that he would have considered BKC’s failure to cross-examine relevant and accepted Honkey’s evidence, at least on the unchallenged evidence. BKC would therefore have failed to establish that there were more than 10% of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category.

Having concluded that BKC has not made out the evidentiary basis upon which to base its claim that it could operationally disapprove because more than 10% of restaurants were in the “Needs Improvement” category, it is strictly not necessary to determine whether Shepherd v Felt & Textiles applies here. Accordingly we deal with the point only briefly.

In Shepherd v Felt & Textiles Dixon J at 377-378 said: “… a party to any simple contract who fails or refuses further to observe its stipulations is entitled to rely upon a breach of conditions, committed before he failed to do so or so refused, by the opposite party to the contract as operating to absolve him from the contract as from the time of such breach of condition whether he was aware of it or not when he himself failed or refused to perform the stipulations of the contract. ‘It is a long established rule of law that a contracting party, who, after he has become entitled to refuse performance of his contractual obligations, gives a wrong reason for his refusal, does not thereby deprive himself of a justification which in fact existed, whether he was aware of it or not.’ (per Greer J., Taylor v Oakes Roncoroni & Co (1922) 127 L.T. at 269).”

We do not consider that Shepherd v Felt & Textiles applies in the circumstances here. This was not a case where a party had terminated for breach on a basis found to be unavailable, in circumstances where there were available grounds to terminate. Rather, it is a case where a party had purported to exercise a discretion to take certain action under a contract upon a basis which was not factually available. That is fundamentally different.

In any event, it cannot be assumed that a discretion would be exercised in the same way even if there were available facts sufficient to support its exercise. HJPL submitted that there was no evidence of how the discretion would have been exercised if the facts were that HJPL had more than 10% of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category. BKC, it was said, bore the onus on this issue. We agree. It was an assertion made in reply to HJPL’s case that the letter of 27 November 1995 revealed Blauer’s discretion was based on more than 20% of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category. It has not satisfied that onus. Blauer was the only person in BKC with the authority to exercise the discretion. He was available but was not called to give evidence. In those circumstances, the principles in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 apply.

BKC submitted, however, that there was evidence sufficient to support a finding that Blauer would have exercised his discretion on the basis that more than 10% was in the “Needs Improvement” category. The evidence said to support this was that Horowitz had meetings with Green in October and November 1995, in which the discussion centred around HJPL having more than 10% of its restaurants in that category. Secondly, Blauer’s letter also referred to the fact that a franchisee “may not” expand if it had more than 10% of its restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category.

We have already dealt with Green’s evidence. We only add that Horowitz’s discussions with Green do not establish the point. His state of mind was irrelevant to the question as to how the discretion would have been exercised, as Blauer was the only person who had this power.

That leaves Blauer’s letter of 27 November 1995 and in particular the statement: “Pursuant to the terms of Section 4.1(a), BKC has the authority to refuse to approve any expansion by HJPL if HJPL fails to comply with the terms of a single franchise agreement. Notwithstanding this requirement, BKC has, without waiving its rights to impose this standard in the future, agreed at this time to treat HJPL consistent with the less restrictive provisions of the Expansion Policy.

It cannot be assumed or inferred, in our opinion, that if it were shown that 11% or 12% or any other percentage below 20% of restaurants were in the “Needs Improvement” category, Blauer would still have exercised his discretion to operationally disapprove HJPL. HJPL was, after all, the main face of BKC in Australia. Further, it was largely the royalties from HJPL which enabled BKC to run its entire Asia Pacific operation. Those factors could have been enough to dissuade Blauer from taking such a drastic step as operational disapproval. But the important point is that, without Blauer’s evidence, the Court simply does not know one way or the other.

In our opinion, all these matters: namely, the failure to deliver a list of restaurants in the “Needs Improvement” category; the failure to forward the Franchise Action Plan to HJPL until October 1995; the failure to comply with its side of the process specified in detail in the Expansion Policy of at least ten visits per year, was unreasonable and lacking in good faith in the sense in which we have explained those concepts.

We are also of the opinion that BKC’s conduct in disapproving, in the manner and at the time it did, was a breach of the implied obligation of co-operation. It was apparent that the Expansion Policy required performance by both parties to achieve its purpose. We are of the opinion that, in order for HJPL to be able to effectively move to improve the categorisation of a restaurant from “Needs Improvement” , it was incumbent upon BKC to provide the specified means for it to do so. That required BKC to promptly provide a Franchise Action Plan at the time it did its classification, in January/February 1995 and to visit the restaurants in accordance with the Policy. It did neither.

Accordingly, we agree with his Honour’s conclusion that BKC had not established that it was entitled in its sole discretion to operationally disapprove HJPL.

Finally, BKC submitted that it was entitled to operationally disapprove HJPL in November 1996 because of the poor operational standards at HJPL’s restaurants observed during 1996. It submitted that in effect, it had done so by withholding operational approval in Miolla’s letter to Cowin of 7 November 1996. That letter was in the following terms: “BKC has, as you are fully aware, exercised that discretion in not granting you operational approval because HJPL has failed to meet and comply with the provisions of Clause 4 having been called upon to do so on numerous occasions.”

His Honour did not make any specific finding as to whether BKC was entitled to operationally disapprove at that time.

However, Miolla’s letter was not a fresh exercise of operational disapproval. It was a re-assertion that HJPL was operationally disapproved. That must relate back to Blauer’s letter of 27 November 1995 and therefore does not assist BKC’s case. Use of Montgomery

We have concluded that BKC breached its obligations of good faith and reasonableness by its conduct in imposing the third party freeze, and in financially and operationally disapproving HJPL from further expansion. In reaching that conclusion, we have focussed on the conduct of BKC, including by reference to the way critical aspects of that conduct closely followed Montgomery’s recommendations. We have, as a separate exercise, found it useful to review Montgomery’s conduct in communicating directly with BKC, as a benchmark against which to independently assess BKC’s actions in respect of the third party freeze and financial and operational disapproval. We review Montgomery’s conduct by way of overview. Greater detail of his communications and the use made of them by BKC is set out in the Schedule of Facts. There is also, of necessity, some repetition of the material referred to above involved in this exercise.

The information supplied by Montgomery and the use made of it by BKC is to be viewed against the following background. By the end of 1993, BKC well understood that the 1990 Agreements contained significant potential benefits for it, which were in danger of being lost. Fitzjohn considered there were a number of options available to BKC to prevent this happening. These included becoming “pro-active” and “taking back ownership” of the market place, especially with regard to market planning, targeting and franchisee recruitment, buying HJPL out, or having some one else buy HJPL out. Unless BKC did take action of some kind, Fitzjohn warned that HJPL would again become the de facto sole operator in Australia.

Fitzjohn was also aware that HJPL were encountering financial difficulties, in some areas at least, as its move into the Melbourne market had resulted in poor financial returns, and that Competitive Foods could not sustain another major cost drain in New South Wales. Fitzjohn perceived therefore, that HJPL’s major expansion strategy would be to recruit third party franchisees.

Power was aware, when he was appointed as BKC’s Development Manager in Australia in mid 1994, that his role was to “exercise tighter control over the Australian operation” . There was, of course, nothing wrong with BKC intending to do so, if that statement could be taken at face value. But as the evidence revealed, BKC’s objective was to take back “ownership” of the marketplace. Significantly in this context, Power was aware of Fitzjohn’s view that it was desirable to convert the Hungry Jack’s name in Australia to Burger King . HJPL had, of course, the right under the Development Agreement to maintain the use of the Hungry Jack’s trade name.

BKC’s conduct and its intentions in respect of the Australian market is also to be reviewed against the further fact that, under the Development Agreement, HJPL had the prospect of expanding over a 20 year period: cl 3 and that the franchise agreements for each restaurant provided for a term of either 15 or 20 years (the term changed at some stage) with an option to renew for the same period. It should be observed in this context that as the initial terms of HJPL’s early franchise agreements began to expire in about 1994, BKC “extended” the term by having HJPL enter into Extension Agreements, rather than renewing the term. Until January 1996, the Extension Agreement itself provided for a renewal of the term.

It soon became apparent how BKC’s strategy was to develop. By early 1995, it was obvious to BKC that the Australian set up, with HJPL as the major franchisee, with its long term rights under the 1990 Agreements “[was] a major impediment to BKC’s future in this country” . Thus, in February 1995, Power, in conjunction with Blauer, proposed a number of options including trying to buy HJPL out, either in whole or in part, for example by buying HJPL out of the east coast of Australia. This suggestion was made in circumstances where BKC knew Shell wished to proceed without HJPL and also knew that Host Marriott was actively seeking a business venture in Australia. BKC clearly saw an opportunity at this time to move HJPL out of the market, or at least to curtail its development.

Montgomery first made contact with Power at the end of March 1995, suggesting that he and Power get together to “review planning directions etc” . Power recognised the contact as being “interesting” .

Montgomery, from the commencement of these communications, conveyed to BKC that HJPL had financial issues which were causing it difficulties at a number of levels and that that might cause Cowin to be amenable to some type of deal, including an offer from Host Marriott.

BKC specifically used Montgomery to convey Marriott’s interest to Cowin, an interest which Cowin resisted. Montgomery conveyed this to BKC but again clearly indicated to BKC that it was a good time to act. As Power reported to Fitzjohn and other BKC executives in Miami: “The key here is that the time to act seems to be being presented to us by [Montgomery] as now.”

At that time, and probably for some time thereafter, BKC was unsure whether Cowin, in turn, was deliberately using Montgomery to “feed” information to BKC. Notwithstanding, BKC sought out Montgomery for “off the record” and “confidential” discussions.

In the discussions which followed Montgomery advocated a number of commercial arrangements, all of which would have the effect of reducing HJPL’s role and presence in the Australian market. For example, on 11 April 1995 he suggested “an Eastern State scenario on a JV basis with BKC-Marriott, rebadging, new [management]” , and that although Cowin was resistant to such a proposal “the opp[ortunity] is within the next few months for a successful action to occur” .

Other information which Montgomery provided to BKC included that Cowin would have little prospect of new restaurant development “come July [1995]” . He advised when Cowin was having meetings with banks. He suggested strategies to counter Cowin’s resistance. For example, on 18 April 1995, when advising that Cowin was “quite frigid” to the prospect of BKC investing directly in the market, he suggested that BKC conduct a “structured review of Burger King/Hungry Jack’s future strategies and issues in Australia” .

Then in May 1995, BKC imposed the third party freeze.

In late June 1995, Montgomery again advised Power of “the worsening financial situation of [Cowin’s] businesses” and that there was a real prospect of an administrator being appointed. He informed Power that “1996 development will be lucky to get off the ground … [Cowin] has cancelled all further development for the foreseeable future” , and that “there simply is no money to grow” . Montgomery suggested that Fitzjohn actively involve himself in meetings with Cowin and that the focus be on the long term strategy for development of the brand. Montgomery considered that once that was settled all other issues would follow.

This prompted Miolla on 29 June 1995 to propose to Power, Hothorn and Fitzjohn a number of options, including financial and operational disapproval, although he did not “relish” this option “as it constitutes a declaration of war” . This option was one of a number put forward as a means of blocking a proposal by HJPL to open at a BP site. Other options considered by BKC at that time included issuing a TRA to Shell or not to approve the BP site on the basis that BKC had “already planned the market” and the BP site would not fit into that market plan.

In cross-examination, Miolla was not able to say that there were grounds for operational disapproval at that time. He said: “You know, I don’t know. I don’t know what the arrangement was between Mr Horowitz and Mr Green about the action plan. I don’t know what the magnitude of the improvements were. I mean, well, academically, I might have been right or wrong on June 29th. I certainly believed on June 29th that we could probably disapprove them for expansion on operational grounds.”

Horowitz, of course, did not give evidence and Green’s evidence was that Horowitz did not provide him with the Franchise Action Plan until October 1995.

Miolla also conceded that at least from the end of June 1995, BKC recognised that steps might have to be taken if HJPL objected to Shell restaurants or sought to expand in areas which BKC regarded as desirable for Shell expansion.

In July 1995, Montgomery commenced communicating directly with Miolla. On 16 July 1995, Montgomery wrote to Miolla with recommendations as to how BKC should approach the forthcoming 4 August 1995 meeting with Cowin. In particular, he advised “time was of the essence” , that Cowin’s style was to “procrastinate” and that BKC should adopt a “carrot and stick” approach. He then set out a proposal which he thought would work. This involved leaving HJPL to operate on a non-exclusive basis in Western Australia and South Australia, but for a new company to operate in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. He proposed that initially BKC and HJPL be the shareholders of this new company, but that “other major players such as Marriott” be brought in. He proposed that BKC maintain operational control.

Montgomery also recommended that BKC seek financial information going back to 1993 and that HJPL be taken out of the test sites. Montgomery concluded his memorandum by stating: “Finally. My best way to help is to remain ANONYMOUS. I should not be quoted on anything. GOOD LUCK.”

Two days later Miolla sent a memorandum to Blauer, Fitzjohn and Hothorn which, in critical respects, mirrored the views and recommendations contained in Montgomery’s memorandum to him.

Miolla also prepared a strategy document for the 4 August 1995 meeting. It, too, closely followed the recommendations made by Montgomery in his 16 July memorandum. Although Miolla contended that the matters set out in the memorandum were conclusions and/or decisions he had arrived at or taken from his own experience and without reliance on Montgomery’s facsimile of 16 July, he agreed that in recommending the negotiating strategy for the meeting he had available to him the views of a very senior employee within the HJPL group. Miolla eventually conceded that the views as to strategy which Montgomery had expressed in his 16 July memorandum were very similar to those he set out in his own strategy document prepared for the meeting of 4 August.

Miolla further agreed that the meeting of 4 August 1995 was an important meeting attended by senior executives on both sides and was for the purpose of discussing future strategic relations. He acknowledged that Montgomery was present to assist Cowin in the negotiations and that he “sat by and let Mr Montgomery adopt that position, notwithstanding, firstly, the facsimile [he] had received and, secondly, [his] knowledge of all the prior Power communications” . He did not accept the proposition that he had done so because it was in BKC’s best interests, but rather he regarded it to BKC’s advantage, in the sense they just “didn’t have to deal with it” . Miolla contended, during this cross-examination, that he did not consider any of the information he was receiving as being of importance, in the sense of having any material impact on what BKC were doing or deciding. That response, of course, is in direct conflict with Hothorn’s evidence, to which we refer shortly.

There was a meeting between Montgomery and BKC very soon after the 4 August 1995 meeting, in which Montgomery again warned BKC of HJPL’s deteriorating financial situation as well as inadequacies in its management and planning.

Montgomery next reported to Power on a meeting of HJPL executives which followed the 4 August 1995 meeting. Montgomery advised BKC at that time that they should be “pushing [Cowin] as hard as possible from all fronts” and that “[BKC should] not let up on op[erational] issues” . He advised BKC about Cowin’s proposed meetings with his bankers scheduled for the end of August. He advised at that time that the financial position was still tight and the next few months would be critical. He said: “I believe your overall strategy must be to keep pressure on. Start to work towards identifying a number and value for the business. Set goal for end of September for an initial figure for discussion purposes. Send one out in interim to get all figures.”

On 1 September 1995 BKC advised HJPL that it was undertaking “the annual financial review” and requested that HJPL forward financial information for the purposes of the review.

On 12 September 1995, Miolla advised Cowin that HJPL had been financially disapproved.

During September 1995, Montgomery continued his communications with BKC, advising by memorandum dated 18 September 1995 how Cowin should be dealt with on specific issues. Significantly, he recommended that BKC call for a full financial report of all Cowin’s businesses. He also advised on tactics, in particular recommending that BKC should maintain “the pressure” and not approve any applications for expansion or give any site approvals. At that time, HJPL had submitted applications for Myaree, Broadway, Parramatta, Hurstville and Bolivar.

Miolla agreed that the advice that he was receiving from Montgomery, particularly in withholding approvals for new restaurants, was quite contrary to the interests of HJPL. Miolla said however, that he was unsure whether Montgomery was “feeding” this information to BKC at the instigation of Cowin.

Two days later, on 20 September 1995, Miolla refused approval for the construction of the new stores. His stated reason was that no new approvals could be given until the financial review was completed.

Montgomery’s activities continued into October 1995. By this time his advice was becoming more aggressive. On 2 October he said “I think you have no choice but to take him and establish once and for all what are the ground rules” and that it would be advisable to have a confrontation sooner rather than later. He said: “The main issues for you to consider are: 1. Grant of Franchises for new stores. (a) Financial capacity. Look at holding company. He may not be willing to supply data - it has not been required in past . (b) TRA Compliance. He needs to acknowledge he must apply and comply. I would not grant him any new rights for new stores.” (emphasis added)

He added that the way to deal with Cowin’s resistance to the TRAs was “not to approve any new stores until he agrees to TRA procedures” .

Miolla wrote to Cowin, on 5 October 1995, in terms which precisely mirrored Montgomery’s advice in relation to the TRA issue. He said, in relation to the pending applications for Myaree and Broadway: “That said, we are prepared, as a show of good faith and an accommodation, to approve the two pending expansion applications on an exception basis … Accordingly, I will forward Target Reservation Agreements … for each site … When [they] are fully executed, you will be authorised to proceed on these two sites.”

Miolla concluded: “As a matter of world wide business practice, we require the franchisees who are losing money must improve their bottom line at existing outlets before we approve additional expansion. Although we have agreed to make an exception of/for the Parramatta and Broadway sites, I need to make it clear that we will not be approving expansion at any additional sites until we have a better understanding of the financial issues. Unfortunately, this includes the recently arrived site packages for Myaree, Boliver and Hurstville. We will, however, consider approving those sites on an exception basis when we get more detailed financial information.”

Miolla said he believed that the statement in the letter of 5 October 1995, that BKC would not be approving expansion at additional sites until a better understanding of the financial issues was obtained, had been written on the instructions of either Gooden or Driscoll, although he had no recollection of what they had said to him as to the reasons for financial disapproval other than what was contained in that letter. Miolla conceded, however, that as at the date of that letter, the position of Gooden and Driscoll was that they were not sure whether HJPL should or should not be approved for development on financial grounds. Miolla was asked: “… and did [Gooden and Driscoll] indicate to you why they decided, in that state of uncertainty, to proceed on the basis that Hungry Jack’s was financially disapproved?” (emphasis added)

Miolla answered: “I don’t recall, but I assume it’s because that was our standard policy”.

In late October 1995, Montgomery provided further information and suggestions as to how HJPL’s financial data should be analysed.

As we have already discussed in relation to financial disapproval, the position had been reached where by the end of October 1995, both Gooden, and Driscoll with some qualifications, had concluded that there was no basis for continuing to withhold financial approval. In making that observation we do not resile from our earlier conclusion that BKC had no contractual entitlement to withdraw financial approval. Rather, we refer only to their assessments at that time. This is important as it was either Driscoll or Gooden, or both, who, on BKC’s case, were the people responsible for determining that question.

However, by that time, that is the end of October 1995, BKC had embarked upon the step of withdrawing operational approval. It will be remembered that Horowitz prepared one schedule on 27 October 1995, and the balance between 28 October and 2 November. On 27 October, at a time when only one schedule had been prepared, in a meeting between Cowin and Miolla in which Cowin, correctly as it turned out, asserted that there was no basis to withhold financial approval, Miolla responded: “Either way, operations are a problem. You will not be approved operationally for expansion because you have more than 10% of your stores in the ‘needs improvement’ category.”

In the meantime, BKC maintained the pressure on HJPL to sign the TRAs.

Rolfe J found that Montgomery’s advice to BKC that HJPL’s financial position was fragile, as well as the information he gave about Cowin’s overall business interests generally, was incorrect. He also found that there was no basis for Montgomery to pass the information on or for Power to make use of it. There was no challenge to either of those findings.

His Honour found, and the evidence clearly supported the conclusion, that BKC made use of the information that Montgomery was supplying for its own commercial benefit, particularly in planning its strategy in relation to HJPL and the Australian market. This is apparent from, amongst other sources, Hothorn’s evidence. The written evidence, we believe, speaks for itself on this.

Hothorn agreed that he perceived Montgomery as being a person who was particularly qualified to provide advice to BKC as to BKC’s ongoing dealings with HJPL. He said: “I think [Montgomery] knew [Cowin] as well as anyone” . He agreed that the information which Montgomery was providing was information which BKC would factor into their considerations as to what to do in relation to HJPL. Hothorn also recognised that the mutual expectation of Montgomery and BKC was that Cowin would not be advised that Montgomery was providing information and strategy ideas to BKC. Hothorn was also of the belief that all relevant decision making personnel within BKC acted on Montgomery’s information. He included in that group Fitzjohn, Miolla, Power, Blauer and Horowitz, as well as himself. As Hothorn said, the information provided by Montgomery “had an impact on everything at Burger King” . Fitzjohn and Power also conceded as much.

Miolla disagreed with the proposition that he believed that Montgomery was acting in BKC’s interest and contrary to the interests of HJPL by providing information to BKC. The trial judge did not accept Miolla’s denial. We agree with his Honour’s finding. In any event, it was a finding based on credit and no basis was put forward to suggest it was a wrong finding: see Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306. Miolla did concede, however, that he knew that Montgomery was acting without the authority of Cowin; that he was taking a position contrary to the position his superiors regarded as in the best interests of HJPL; and that had his superiors known of Montgomery’s activities they would have removed him from responsibility in relation to any issue concerning the relationship between HJPL and BKC and, in particular, in relation to successor stores.

Power conceded in cross-examination that he thought that the financial material, including the operating accounts of companies within the Competitive Foods group, which he had forwarded to Miami on 1 November 1995, was relevant to the question whether HJPL should be financially disapproved. He clearly recognised that it involved all the businesses of Competitive Foods and that he was aware that Montgomery had no involvement in other companies in the Competitive Foods Group. In response to the proposition that he believed Montgomery had no right to the information in respect of the other companies in the group, Power responded: “I didn’t hold an opinion as to whether he might have access to such information within HJPL or within the group.” (emphasis added)

Power also conceded that he was aware of the fiduciary responsibilities that directors and officers owed to companies and that he would consider it unacceptable if a senior officer of one of his companies had disclosed to a third party information concerning the operations of related companies in the group. Likewise, he agreed that a person who received such information would be acting unacceptably. He sought to excuse his role in conveying this information to BKC executives in Miami, first, by stating that he was not using the information which had been provided and, secondly, because, he said, it was information normally sought from a franchisee as part of processing the franchisee’s annual financial approval.

In further cross-examination, Power conceded that his answer that he had not used the information provided by Montgomery was false. He acknowledged that the other companies in the Competitive Foods group, and their franchisees, may well have objected to the provision of the information. He also acknowledged that the information which had been provided by Montgomery, that he analysed and then forwarded to Miami, was more than was necessary for BKC to understand the inter-company position of HJPL and more than would be required in any franchisee situation where there was an inter-company structure.

The trial judge found that Power had completely failed to explain his conduct in receiving this information, analysing and forwarding it to Miami, notwithstanding that he knew that Montgomery was acting wrongly, and that he, Power, was taking advantage of that wrongful conduct. Rolfe J found his conduct to be discreditable. Again, we consider that finding to be unassailable: see Abalos v Australian Postal Commission .

The trial judge made reference to the conduct of Montgomery in passing on HJPL’s confidential information to BKC and in providing other advice to them which he clearly perceived would benefit BKC and perhaps also himself and would not benefit HJPL. His Honour found at paragraph 17 that BKC was: “… content to … use [such material] to advance BKC’s position.”

His Honour continued: “There were compelling examples of Montgomery’s advice being followed, shortly after it was received, by BKC. I do not consider that this was merely coincidental. … [and that] BKC was prepared to go to [considerable lengths] … to use the material to seek to undermine the position of HJPL.”

His Honour further found that these activities “were carried out in the context of BKC’s wishing to regain control of the Australian market” , a strategy which commenced at least in 1993. He said that there was no commercially acceptable reason for Montgomery’s conduct and that BKC’s conduct was “commercially reprehensible” . He found that not only was BKC acting behind HJPL’s back but it was utilising the advice from Montgomery, knowing him to be a trusted employee of HJPL “to formulate its strategy against HJPL” .

These findings, in our opinion, are incontestable and reinforce our conclusion that BKC acted in breach of its obligations of good faith in its dealings with HJPL over the issues of the third party freeze and financial and operational disapproval.

The focus of the preceding review of Montgomery’s conduct has been in respect of his role relating to the third party freeze, and financial and operational disapproval, in the context of the implied terms.

Montgomery also provided insight, advice and recommendations in respect of the successor store issue throughout 1995 until after the commencement of the proceedings. In the latter respect, he conveyed confidential information regarding HJPL’s conduct of the proceedings generally.

BKC accepted that, in the circumstances, Montgomery was acting in breach of his fiduciary duty. Nothing could have been more obvious. This concession is relevant to the issue of BKC’s accessory liability in respect of the successor store issue. Conclusion on Implied Terms (Third Party Freeze and Financial and Operational Disapproval)

In the result, we have found that his Honour’s findings that there were implied terms of good faith and reasonableness and that those terms, and the implied term of cooperation, were breached were correct. His Honour’s findings in this regard provided an alternate basis to the finding that there had in fact been no breach of cl 2.1 upon which to find in favour of HJPL. THE LONGER NOTICE OF TERMINATION

In addition to the Shorter Notice given by BKC to HJPL on 18 November 1996, BKC also purported to terminate the Development Agreement by the giving of what became referred to as the Longer Notice on the same date. The Longer Notice comprises 11 pages and purports to terminate the Development Agreement pursuant to cl 15.1 of the agreement relying on some ten breaches. The Notice is reproduced in the Schedule of Facts as Annexure C.

Some of these alleged breaches may now be put aside since they were abandoned by BKC. We are left with the allegations of breach of cl 6.5 of the Development Agreement: by reason of the sunglasses promotion by HJPL (para B); by the failure of HJPL to seek BKC’s approval to advertising (para C 2); and by failing to properly use BKC’s trade marks (para C 3). Paragraph C 10 covers similar ground relating to the manner of use of BKC’s trade marks pursuant to cl 4 of the Registered User Agreement. It alleged: “C (10) Breach of Registered User Agreement Clause 4 of the Registered User Agreement made between BKC and HJPL and dated 13 November 1990 provides inter alia ‘The user must promptly: (a) comply with all reasonable directions regarding the manner of use of the Trade Marks issued from time to time by the Owner: A copy of the said Registered User Agreement is attached to this Notice and marked 10. Particulars of Breaches (a) See the Particulars of Breaches as are set out in Schedule C(2)(c) attached hereto (b) BKC will also rely upon any other breaches by HJPL of the above Registered Users Agreement of which it is presently unaware but which subsequently come to its notice.”

The Longer Notice did not give any opportunity to HJPL to cure any of the defects pursuant to cl 15.2 of the Development Agreement.

According to BKC’s submission, three issues arose under this head of appeal. First, assuming a breach of cl 6.5, did that permit BKC to invoke the cl 15.1 termination mechanism? Secondly, if cl 15 was capable of being invoked, was the notice bad because it did not invite cure? Thirdly, was there a breach in any event?

Clause 6.5 of the Development Agreement is set out in full in para 58.

In dealing with the sunglasses promotion, his Honour found that the remedy for BKC lay in cl 6.5 and that BKC did not give notice to HJPL to remove or discontinue immediately the use “of any objectionable advertising material” .

In the alternative, his Honour found that if the sunglasses promotion was a breach of cl 6.5 and cl 15 applied, it was capable of being cured. A notice to cure was therefore required to be given before any purported termination and none was given.

With regard to the alleged trade mark breaches, BKC submitted that they were incapable of cure because HJPL’s conduct brought the marks into such disrepute, that making good the breaches could never remove the stigma or damage to reputation thereby caused. Rolfe J rejected this submission, saying that there was no evidence of any stigma caused to BKC’s name, marks or products and that the breaches were capable of being cured.

As to the alleged breach of failing to seek and obtain the approval of BKC to advertising material, his Honour held that BKC’s remedy was governed by cl 6.5 and no notice had been given under that clause. Alternatively, his Honour found that if the right to terminate arose under cl 15, the breach was clearly capable of cure and no notice had been given.

His Honour rejected the allegation of breach of the Registered User Agreement for essentially the same reasons as he had for the advertising complaints.

Rolfe J concluded that BKC had failed to establish that the Longer Notice was a valid notice terminating the Development Agreement.

BKC submitted that cl 6.5 does not oust or replace cl 15.1(d). It was put that if his Honour was correct, then it could mean that BKC would be entirely powerless and have to tolerate serious contraventions. We do not think that this necessarily follows. If, for example, HJPL failed to remove or discontinue the use of any objectionable material after receipt of a notice under cl 6.5, BKC would be entitled to utilise cl 15.1.

The main thrust of BKC’s submission however, was that the breaches relied on in the Longer Notice are incapable of cure and, accordingly, no notice to cure under cl 15.2 is needed.

Further, the nature of the breaches are said to attach a stigma and an enduring injury to the reputation of BKC, its name, marks and products. The marks were, so it was submitted, put in peril. This argument is particularly maintained with respect to the sunglasses promotion.

A number of responses may be made to this submission. First, the breaches alleged in the schedule to the Longer Notice are mostly minor and technical in nature. Some are stale. None could put BKC’s marks in jeopardy, or lead to a loss of the marks. His Honour recorded that this much was conceded by BKC. An examination of the nature of the alleged breaches confirms why counsel for BKC made this concession at the trial. The concession left BKC with the residual submission that the misuse of the marks could, together with other misconduct , lead to their loss. We reject this submission which lacks any basis under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Further, there is no reason to assume some subsequent misuse by HJPL.

In any event, the breaches in the schedule are, in our opinion, capable of cure and require the opportunity to be given to HJPL under cl 15.2. The fact that the breaches may have occurred does not mean that they are incapable of cure. Clearly, the alleged breaches are capable of being remedied. The use of logos, tag lines and failure to use the symbol ® are obvious examples. We deal with the advertising and sunglasses promotion below. Clause 7.2 of the Registered User Agreement requires notice in respect of any breach and requires a remedy within 10 days. Indeed, it appears that BKC accepted the position that the breaches were capable of remedy when it gave an earlier notice to cure in March 1996. Advertising

We agree with his Honour’s conclusions on the claim in the Longer Notice that HJPL failed to seek or obtain BKC’s approval for advertisements and other material. BKC’s remedy in relation to advertising was governed by cl 6.5 and no notice was given thereunder. Alternatively, if cl 15 could be invoked, the breaches were capable of cure and required a cl 15.2 notice to cure, which was not given.

The advertising issue needs to be understood in the context of what actually occurred. It seems that HJPL never submitted individual advertising for approval by BKC and BKC never complained about this. BKC quite clearly accepted that HJPL would not submit individual advertising for approval. Until Gough’s appointment in 1995, BKC had no-one on the ground in Australia to deal with marketing and advertising. Moreover, prior to that, no-one was assigned by BKC in the USA to be responsible for “vetting” HJPL’s proposed advertising material. This situation had gone on for many years and explains Cowin’s evidence of HJPL’s inability to comply with cl 6.5 at the time.

According to Cowin and Wilson, an arrangement was reached with Gough that individual advertising was not required to be submitted for approval. Instead, Gough would attend quarterly marketing meetings of HJPL, where discussions about proposed advertising campaigns took place and proposed advertising copy was produced and discussed. Certainly, Gough attended such meetings and between meetings, was sent copies of HJPL memoranda relating to marketing and advertising material, although he denied there was an arrangement as alleged. It is plain, however, that Gough participated in HJPL’s decision-making on advertising promotions and never protested to HJPL that it had not complied with any obligation to submit advertising material to BKC for approval.

This evidentiary context makes it clear that if the Court were to embark on an examination of the Notice of Contention, HJPL would likely succeed in its submission with regard to waiver and estoppel. The Sunglasses Promotion

The sunglasses promotion resulted in HJPL contravening s 65C(1)(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). There was, therefore, a failure by it to adhere to a statutory regulation within cl 6.5 of the Development Agreement.

BKC did not give any notice to HJPL under cl 6.5 to “remove or discontinue immediately the use of any objectionable advertising material” . Nor did it afford HJPL the opportunity to cure the breach in accordance with cl 15.2.

His Honour said that because the regulatory authority, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) intervened, the promotion was stopped by HJPL. Hence, the need for any notice to rectify under cl 6.5 did not arise. However, he added that in those circumstances, the breach having been remedied prior to the purported termination, there was no right to terminate based on that breach.

To his Honour the question came down to whether the breach was capable of being cured because, as BKC had submitted, the stigma created by the breach could never be removed. Rolfe J rejected this submission on the basis of the absence of evidence of any stigma caused to BKC or HJPL’s name, marks or products. His Honour found that the breach was capable of being cured and hence a notice to do so should have been given before any purported termination.

The context of the sunglasses breach needs to be considered. BKC’s Marketing Manager in Australia, Gough, was aware of and involved in plans for the sunglasses promotion with Wilson from HJPL. It was based on a similar promotion by Burger King in New Zealand. The promotion had been discussed at the quarterly marketing meeting attended by Gough on 30 April 1996. A memorandum on the promotion was circulated to Gough on 15 August 1996. The promotion began on 18 September 1996 and the labelling deficiency on the sunglasses was identified on 22 September 1996. Immediate corrective action was taken by HJPL applying correct labels to the sunglasses. Corrective advertising was displayed at the point of sale and on 26 September 1996 corrective newspaper advertising was undertaken by Playcorp, the supplier of the sunglasses. Wilson notified Gough on 22 September 1996 of the labelling error on the sunglasses. In this respect Gough was obviously in error in his evidence when he said that the date was in October.

The third party supplier to HJPL of the sunglasses, Playcorp, acknowledged that it was its error in failing to label the sunglasses “not suitable for driving” and accepted responsibility for the breach. HJPL properly acknowledged that it was in breach of the Trade Practices Act . The ACCC took HJPL to the Federal Court and Carr J ordered additional corrective advertising to take place. In this respect, we reject the submission of BKC that HJPL was in breach of cl 6.5 by not obtaining BKC’s approval to the corrective advertising ordered by the Federal Court, as lacking in any substance.

As his Honour observed, no evidence was led by BKC to suggest any loss of goodwill or detriment to the market reputation of the BKC system and Hungry Jack’s brand.

BKC rely on a number of English authorities in which the stigma caused by the breach meant that it was incapable of cure. The cases concern brothels and illegal gambling. It is easy to understand their rationale. In those cases it was held that the stigma was such, applying societal standards of the day, that it could never be removed. As we have recorded, there was no actual evidence of any stigma attaching to BKC. Accordingly, do the facts, of themselves, lead to the conclusion that the breach was so gross as to stigmatise BKC’s system and Hungry Jack’s products, their names, trade marks and image? When the facts are understood in their proper context, we do not believe that any stigma attached to the intellectual property in the way contended for by the appellant. The nature of the breaches were not such as would attach a stigma whether one looks at it from the standpoint of prevailing community standards (as in the stigma cases) or on the basis of evidence (of which there was none). In particular, there was no enduring injury to the reputation of BKC’s relevant name or marks, nor were they put in peril.

The relevance of the so-called ‘stigma’ cases must be understood in their context. The first of note is Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB 87. The defendant was using a house as a brothel and the plaintiff lessors sought to obtain possession. They served a statutory notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK). The notice did not include any requirement to remedy the breach.

The question was whether the particular breach was capable of remedy. Greer LJ agreed with the trial judge Mackinnon J that it was not. However, his Lordship said that the judge had gone further than was necessary for the decision in holding that a breach of any negative covenant can never be capable of remedy. Greer LJ said at 90 - 91: “It is unnecessary to decide the point on this appeal; but in some cases where the immediate ceasing of that which is complained of, together with an undertaking against any further breach, it might be said that the breach was capable of remedy. This particular breach, however - conducting the premises, or permitting them to be conducted, as a house of ill-fame - is one which in my judgment was not remedied by merely stopping this user.”

Maugham LJ was also of the opinion that Mackinnon J had gone too far. He said at 92: “I am not satisfied that there may not be some negative covenants with regard to which a breach may be capable of remedy so that as to them a proper notice under s 146 ought to require the lessee to remedy the breach.”

His Lordship noted that the section provided that the breach must be capable of remedy within a reasonable time. In this context he said at 93 - 94: “The importance of that in this case is that merely ceasing to use the premises for an illegal or immoral purpose is not in any true sense to remedy the breach. The phrase in the covenant is of course negative; it is not to permit the premises to be used for an illegal or immoral purpose. In a sense the lessee ceased to permit the premises to be used for such a purpose if during a week she complies with the covenant; but that is not sufficient to establish that in the particular case the breach is capable of remedy. The use of the premises for a long period for an immoral purpose seriously tends to damage their value and to give them a bad name, as indeed is shown by the common designation of such premisesnamely, a house of ill-fame; and merely ceasing for a reasonable time, perhaps a few weeks or a month, to use the premises for an immoral purpose would be no remedy for the breach of covenant which had been committed over a long period.”

Egerton and Others v Esplanade Hotels, London Ltd and Another [1947] 2 All ER 88 was another brothel case, involving a similar breach to Rugby School . Morris J noted that the facts included a police raid on the premises, criminal convictions and some publicity. He said at 91 - 92: “… in my judgment, the breach was of such a nature that it must cast a stigma on the premises and impose a taint which can only be removed if those who have brought it about are no longer associated with the premises. There are, of course, always the beneficent effects of time in effacing the memory of unhappy and unpleasant things, but this was not, in my opinion, a breach which was capable of remedy within a reasonable time. I think I am entitled, when considering this matter, to have regard to the whole amenity of the neighbourhood and what must be the repercussions of events of this kind and their effect on property in the neighbourhood. Under the contract, which existed between the plaintiffs and the first defendants, the first defendants covenanted not to use the premises in the way in which they have used them. Merely desisting from the wrongful user or not continuing to commit further breaches is not, in my judgment, on the facts of this case, a way of remedying the breach.”

Egerton was closely followed by Hoffmann v Fineberg and Others [1949] 1 Ch 245. This was a case where leased premises were used as an illegal gambling club. The notice given under the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK) did not require the lessee to remedy the breach. Harman J said that the object of the provision was to enable the lessee to understand what to do within the reasonable time allowed to remedy the breach. But was the breach capable of remedy? His Honour said that the cases gave little guidance as to what is “capable of remedy” . Harman J said at 253: “… In one sense, no breach can ever be remedied, because there must always, ex concessis, be a time in which there has not been compliance with the covenant, but the section clearly involves the view that some breaches are remediable, and therefore it cannot mean that …”

Harman J discussed the Rugby School case and the statements by Greer LJ and Maugham LJ, that Mackinnon J had gone too far in his statement of principle regarding the breach of negative covenants. His Honour also discussed Egerton and observed at 256 - 257: “It will be observed that he was very careful to say that he was going on the facts of that case only. He held that a breach which had resulted in a conviction for keeping a brothel was not capable of remedy within a reasonable time, because, I think, of the stigma that it laid on the premises and the damage that it would do to the reputation of the house. It was therefore submitted to me that one test may be that any breach involving a criminal offence is a breach which is incapable of remedy. I am not prepared to go so far. In these days the invention of criminal offences is a daily government activity, and there might in the near future, for all I know, be a criminal offence created in painting your house yellow. That is not at all impossible, although no doubt it would be in a regulation to which the public would not have any access; but I am not prepared to say that in every case a conviction for that kind of offence though it involved a breach of covenant would be an irremediable breach. It is said on the other side that Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill and Egerton v Esplanade Hotels, London, Ltd are distinguishable because no stigma nor diminution of value is involved in the present case. It is perfectly true that allowing gambling to go on and allowing a house to be used as a house of ill fame involve very different degrees of moral obliquity, and many people would think that there was not any very great harm, perhaps, in gin rummy; nevertheless, it is a criminal offence when played as it was here in a public place.”

Harman J concluded that the breach was the condonation of a crime and that ceasing to commit it was no remedy. Rugby School and Egerton were considered by Sugerman J in Batson v De Carvalho , to which we have already referred. There the Court was considering a similar issue although not one with moral overtones. A notice given under s 129 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) did not require the lessee to remedy the breach. Again, the question was whether the breach was ‘capable of remedy’. The breach, there, was an assignment without consent. After referring to Rugby School and Egerton , Sugerman J said at 426: “It is not necessarily true that every breach of a covenant not to assign etc. without consent is capable of remedy. For instance the character of the assignee etc., or the use to which he puts the premises, may produce consequences making applicable the considerations which led to the actual decision in the two cases to which I have just referred [Rugby School and Egerton]. Nothing of that sort can be suggested here.”

In discussing the issue of whether a breach was “capable of remedy” Sugerman J added at 426 - 427: “… A breach may, I think, be “capable of remedy”, looking at the matter as at the date of giving notice, even though there is then no certainty that, notwithstanding the efforts of the lessee to remedy it, it will be remedied. What the lessee is entitled to is an “opportunity of complying with the requirements of the notice”: Fox v Jolly [1935] 1 KB 87. He may in the result be unable to do so, e.g. because he cannot, in the case of a breach of a covenant to repair, obtain the requisite materials. Or the actual remedying of the breach may depend upon securing the concurrence of some person other than the lessee, and in the result it may not be secured. But I think it may none the less be said, looking at the matter as at the date of notice, that the breach is “capable of remedy” within the meaning of the section. Hence it seems to me that a breach consisting in parting with possession or subletting without the consent of the lessor may, in some, if not in all, cases, be capable of remedy by applying for and securing that consent.” and, (although part of the following passage had already been quoted) he added at 427: “… To “remedy” a breach is not to perform the impossible task of wiping it outof producing the same condition of affairs as if the breach had never occurred. It is to set things right for the future, and that may be done even though they have for some period not been right, and even though that may have caused some damage to the lessor … that the breach has not resulted in a detriment to the premises which cannot be removed within a reasonable time. The physical analogy in the use of the word “remedy” (and similar words, such as “cure”, in other branches of the law) may be referred to, not as an argument but to illustrate what is meant. A breach may be remedied, I think, even though the time for doing the thing under the covenant may have passed, or the order of events stipulated for in the covenant can no longer be observed …”

What may be gleaned from these cases? First, they were all lease cases concentrating on the requirements of a statutory notice. One should obviously be wary of transposing any principle to a general contractual provision. Secondly, the English cases are all concerned with degrees of “moral obliquity” and the “stigma” said to attach to the premises is therefore understandable. Lastly, it seems that the thesis that breaches of negative covenants are always incapable of breach has been rejected, and rightly so in our judgment.

We do not see that the breaches here under consideration are incapable of remedy or cure. Certainly, none of them involve the attachment of such a stigma to the business, marks or products of BKC so as to justify the conclusion that the breaches are incapable of cure or remedy. There is no lasting or enduring injury to the reputation and name of BKC or Hungry Jack’s so as to render the breaches incapable of remedy. As we have said, the breaches did not place the trade marks in jeopardy and so much was conceded. We have earlier referred to the passage at 249-250 in the speech of Lord Reid in L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd and will not repeat it here. It is, however, also apposite to the issue we are presently addressing.

In any event, we think that Rolfe J was right to say that if cl 15 could be utilised, then the breach was capable of being cured and required the giving of a notice under cl 15.2. Just because a breach may affect a matter of reputation, it does not necessarily follow that it is incapable of cure. Similarly, the fact that a breach had taken place, does not mean that it is incapable of being remedied. The breach was in fact remedied by the series of corrective actions taken by HJPL before and after the Federal Court hearing. THE SUCCESSOR STORES Introduction

At the trial, HJPL claimed relief regarding ten restaurants in respect of which the term of their individual franchise agreements had expired. The relief sought by HJPL, in relation to each restaurant was that the Extension Agreements be set aside and that BKC be ordered to offer a further franchise agreement for an additional period of 15 or 20 years. This claim was based on the provision for renewal of the term contained in cl IX of the standard franchise agreement.

Clause IX of the Franchise Agreement provided for a once only renewal of the term. Its provisions are set out at para 82 of this judgment.

We will return to the problems of construction shortly. However, as has already been observed, after the term of each franchise agreement expired, BKC did not offer to HJPL the opportunity to remain a franchisee for one additional period of the same term. Rather, the parties entered into agreements to extend the franchise agreements, known as Extension Agreements. Each Extension Agreement provided for an extended expiry date of the franchise agreement. However, on and after 1 January 1996, the terms of the Extension Agreements were changed by BKC. From that time they provided that there should be no further extensions, and included certain acknowledgments, waivers and releases. The new provisions included in each Extension Agreement were as follows: “A. The Franchisee acknowledges that BKC has extended the term of the Franchise Agreement on multiple occasions that, taken together with this sixth extension, BKC has given the Franchisee ample and reasonable opportunity to take all steps necessary to meet the requirements for a renewal or successor agreement to continue to operate at the site of the franchised restaurant. B. The Franchisee hereby agrees and acknowledges that BKC is under no obligation whatsoever to allow the franchised restaurant to continue to operate beyond the Extended Expiration Date and that unless BKC agrees in writing and in its sole and absolute discretion to further extend the Extended Expiration Date, the franchised restaurant shall close on the Extended Expiration Date and the Franchisee shall comply with all post-termination obligations under the Franchise Agreement, including a de-identification of the franchised restaurant as proved in Exhibit A hereto, within fourteen (14) days of the Extended Expiration Date. C. The Franchisee hereby waives and releases BKC from any and all claims that BKC has not given the Franchisee a reasonable time and opportunity to comply with the requirements for obtaining a renewal or successor agreement.”

At the trial, HJPL attacked the validity of these Extension Agreements on three bases: (i) That they were inconsistent with HJPL’s right under cl IX of the franchise agreements and should be set aside for mistake. (ii) That they were obtained by BKC when it was knowingly involved in a breach of duty by Montgomery in relation to the successor restaurants and had failed to disclose that breach to HJPL. (iii) That they were obtained by BKC in breach of cl IX of the franchise agreements, and in breach of a duty of good faith owed to HJPL under the Development Agreement and under threat of closure of the successor restaurants.

If the acknowledgments, waivers and releases (set forth above) were set aside, the position is governed by cl IX of the franchise agreements.

Rolfe J dealt with this issue in a rolled-up fashion. In para 683 of the judgment he said: “… on 4 March 1996, Mr Miolla advised him [Cowin] that BKC was unwilling to modify its contractual rights regarding its authority to refuse to renew agreements unless HJPL made capital agreements [sic] acceptable to it ‘in its sole discretion’. The acceptance by Mr Cowin of this position must have made it clear to Mr Miolla that Mr Cowin was mistaken as to HJPL’s contractual rights. Mr Miolla also acknowledged that it was unlikely, in those circumstances, that Mr Montgomery would advise Mr Cowin to verify whether BKC had the right to nominate works at the successor restaurants in its sole discretion. In my opinion, Mr Miolla understood that Mr Cowin was acting under a mistake of which Mr Montgomery would not disabuse him.”

It is agreed that the reference to “capital agreements” in line 3 should read “capital works” .

Later his Honour said: “BKC, in my opinion, acted dishonestly or with lack of probity in failing to advise Mr Cowin of Mr Montgomery’s activities and in accepting Mr Montgomery’s actions such as to be affected by his breach of fiduciary duties. BKC also breached the implied terms of reasonableness and good faith in the Franchise Agreements by failing to draw HJPL’s attention to Mr Montgomery’s conduct. Further, I am prepared to infer, as Mr Montgomery’s acts were not those of HJPL, HJPL was, consistently with the principles to which I have referred, acting under a mistake of which mistake, I have no doubt, BKC was aware and prepared to take advantage. Thus two relevant principles, viz ‘accessory liability’ for breach of fiduciary duty and mistake, in the sense I have described, came into play.”

According to his Honour, BKC should not be permitted to benefit from its complicity in Montgomery’s breach of his fiduciary duties to HJPL. There existed in BKC “the necessary element of dishonesty or lack of probity” to give rise to accessory liability in accordance with Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378. His Honour also referred to the opinion of Lord Thankerton in Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co [1934] 3 DLR 465 [PC] and the Full Federal Court in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Smith (1991) 102 ALR 453.

BKC’s submission to each of the three areas of liability found by his Honour may be summarised as follows: (i) Cowin’s misapprehension did not relate to the contents of the Extension Agreements entered into, rather to the effects of the franchise agreements. This mistake did not vitiate the Extension Agreements. (ii) BKC was under no duty to advise Cowin of the activities of Montgomery. The fiduciary duties were owed to HJPL by Montgomery, not by BKC, and there was no relevant wrongdoing by BKC. (iii) Even if terms of reasonableness and good faith were to be implied, they would not have obliged BKC to advise HJPL of Montgomery’s activities. In any event, HJPL’s remedy for breach is in damages only and not the setting aside of the Extension Agreements.

Rolfe J found that HJPL was entitled to be offered franchise agreements for each of the ten successor stores. He made orders setting aside the Extension Agreements and requiring BKC to enter into new franchise agreements with HJPL. BKC did not seek any stay of these orders (including the orders made on the Murray Street appeal) and the parties have since entered into new franchise agreements for all of the successor restaurants in issue in the proceedings. Nine were executed in February 2000 and the Murray Street site in August 2000. Each is for a term of 15 years, that being the term of the original franchise agreements for these stores.

The 1997 Notice of Termination relied on the continuation of operation by HJPL of eight successor restaurants after the expiry of the initial term of the franchise agreements, in some cases as extended by the Extension Agreements.

The eight restaurants in the 1997 Notice of Termination were part of the ten successor stores involved in his Honour’s order for new franchise agreements to be offered by BKC. His Honour held that BKC was not entitled to rely on the successor store ground in the 1997 Notice of Termination in order to terminate the Development Agreement. We will make reference to this later when dealing with the 1997 Notice of Termination. Are the Orders Moot?

HJPL submitted that the question of whether his Honour should have made the original orders (numbered 3 and 4) is now moot and restitution should not now be ordered. The same submission is made in respect of the Murray Street appeal. It is said to be moot because no application was made for a stay of those orders. Instead, BKC put HJPL to proof that it satisfied the requirements for the grant of new franchise agreements pursuant to cl IX of the franchise agreements. BKC obtained extensions of time to comply with his Honour’s orders on the basis that it would grant new franchise agreements. HJPL accepted the offers made by BKC and has performed.

All of these new agreements have come into existence and confer contractual rights on HJPL to operate the restaurants for 15 years.

Nine agreements were made in February 2000 and the Murray Street agreement was made in August 2000, following the judgment in the Murray Street proceeding of 30 March 2000. The restaurants have operated since. Franchise fees and royalties as are required by the terms of the new agreements have been paid by HJPL to BKC. The contracts create a new legal regime between the parties for those particular sites.

In relation to Murray Street, an eight year lease (with two options of four years and four years and three months respectively) was entered into with a third party commencing on 14 June 2000. HJPL also entered into a building agreement on 16 June 2000 with a third party in a sum of close to $350,000. Significant moneys have been expended by HJPL with regard to the Murray Street site. For example, equipment costs exceeded $273,000.

In brief, it is HJPL’s submission that a series of agreements have been entered into as a consequence of his Honour’s orders and, with regard thereto, benefits have been delivered and obligations incurred by both sides. Further, third party obligations have been incurred by HJPL. Moreover, none of the franchise agreements were entered into subject to the rights of appeal.

Importantly, BKC has taken benefits under the agreements. Effective restitution is maintained by the respondent to be now impossible. In all of these circumstances, HJPL submitted that the solution was in the hands of BKC. It could have sought a stay of his Honour’s orders pending the appeal. It chose not to do so although it did seek a stay of his Honour’s money orders. HJPL submits that BKC elected not to seek a stay of the orders but decided to comply with them and enter into the ten new successor agreements for terms of 15 years.

BKC points to Pt 51 r 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1973 (NSW), which specifically provides for the Court of Appeal to make orders for restitution as it thinks fit. BKC submitted that the law is settled that the court will order repayment of monies recovered as a result of an erroneous judgment and an order may also be made for the repayment of interest: Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273; Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the court in Production Spray Painting & Panel Beating Pty Ltd v Newnham (No 2) (1991) 27 NSWLR 659 at 663 wherein Handley JA considered that the principle was that of restitutio in integrum . BKC submitted that the unjust enrichment of the unsuccessful party on appeal underlies this principle. While restitution does not extend to the award of damages to compensate for loss flowing from the erroneous judgment or order ( NAB v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd [1991] 1 VR 386) it includes the restoration of the benefits directly ordered, for example, interest and mesne profits. Restitution involves a passing back to the party that which was taken from him or her. It is intended to effect a just result by requiring restoration to one party of what was wrongly taken from him or her and given to the other.

BKC further submitted that it was obliged to enter into the franchise agreements by his Honour’s orders, which it would not otherwise have done. Therefore, BKC lost its right to be free of the obligation of the franchise agreements. HJPL would be unjustly enriched if it was permitted to have the benefit of the agreements for the balance of the 15 year term. BKC argued that there is no third party interest which prevents HJPL making restitution.

However, BKC conceded at the hearing of the appeal that the benefits which have accrued to date are protected. Additionally, it accepted that problems would accompany an immediate restitution. Accordingly, at the appeal BKC proposed that orders be made which would permit HJPL a period of 15 months to reorder its affairs with regard to the ten sites. It suggested that the orders of his Honour be set aside and that it be declared that HJPL holds on trust for BKC so much of the benefit of the agreements entered into pursuant to his Honour’s orders, from a date 15 months after the date of setting aside the orders by the Court of Appeal.

While an order for restitution may follow more or less as of course where a money order is involved, it is by no means clear what should occur when a party enters into an agreement pursuant to a court order and the legal basis for the order is later found to be erroneous. Similar considerations may arise with regard to orders in the nature of mandatory injunctions.

As a matter of general principle it is clear that restitution can only be ordered against a party to the judgment: Goff & Jones, Law of Restitution . This raises the question of the position of third parties who may have acted in reliance on the efficacy of the new franchise agreements, as they would be entitled to do. This is especially acute with regard to the Murray Street site and the appeal in respect of it because HJPL entered into a 16 year lease (including options) with a third party and also a substantial building and fit out contract.

Underlying the consideration of how to approach the issue of restitution are competing principles. One is that when a party is compelled to carry out an act under compulsion of law and this results in the unjust enrichment of the unsuccessful party on appeal, the successful party should be entitled to be restored to its position beforehand. The competing principle is that full confidence and respect must be accorded to the judgment, and execution may be had at any time prior to reversal. The key to the conundrum is, in our view, the application for a stay of the orders.

In a detailed examination of the issues, D M Gordon, in (1958) 74 Law Quarterly Review 517, has stated that the law will not be stretched so far as to ensure a party obtains the fruits of a successful appeal, where it has neglected to protect itself. He says that there is no guarantee that an appellant will obtain the full fruits of success on appeal where the loss results from its own folly.

According to the researches of counsel, the Court is little assisted by authority in this situation. The most relevant is Zegluga Polska SA v TR Shipping Ltd [1996] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 337. At first instance Colman J ordered specific performance of an agreement to transfer the title and possession, unconditionally, of a boat. The defendants gave notice that they proposed to assert legal and equitable rights in relation to the transfer. They did not appeal the order nor seek a stay of it.

Evans LJ said at 342 - 343: “… the question is whether the defendants complied with the order for specific performance. That required them to transfer title and possession unconditionally. Could they consistently with such a transfer give notice that they proposed to assert legal or equitable rights which would or might result in the transfer being nullified? In my judgment they could not. Whether or not the claim amounted to an encumbrance within the MOA, it was inconsistent with an unconditional or unqualified transfer of the title to the plaintiffs or their nominee and was intended by them to be regarded as such. In short the defendants, as it seems to me, had a choice. Either they could effect the transfer without reserving any right to recover the vessel or they could postpone the transfer until the validity of their claim had been established and the Court had ruled whether they were entitled to refuse delivery altogether. That would have involved seeking a stay of Mr. Justice Colman’s order for a short period, equivalent to the stay which was obtained by the plaintiffs in any event. But the defendants, in my judgment, could not do both of these things and what is more, in the latter event, that is to say if they had sought to have the matter resolved by the Court before the transfer took place, there would have been no question of recovering possession. No transfer would have taken place. and The defendants having chosen so far not to appeal, one must infer that their reason was to delay the hearing of an appeal, likewise, their failure to seek a stay which would have led to an early hearing of an appeal.”

Morritt LJ agreed stating that it was common ground that the order required both parties to complete the contract unconditionally. He also noted that no application had been made for a stay of the order pending an appeal. Hutchison LJ agreed.

So too here. BKC, it seems, made a conscious decision not to seek a stay of his Honour’s orders. Rather it elected to comply with them. No doubt BKC was concerned about what security might be ordered should a stay be sought. BKC elected to enter into the ten new franchise agreements and to accept the benefits of so doing by receipt of the franchise fees and continuing royalties. The franchise agreements created contractual rights and obligations on the parties. In some instances, such as Murray Street, there was considerable impact on third parties. The agreements were not entered into subject to the appeal. The contracts created new legal regimes binding the parties. All of these factors underline the importance of seeking to stay the orders pending appeal, which BKC failed to do.

In all the circumstances, we do not see that it would be appropriate to order restitution in the event of a finding that the orders were made in error. The orders proposed by BKC are also likely to be difficult to implement and would only invite further disputation. Unscrambling the egg may be nigh impossible. The point has simply become moot. Mistake

In case the orders are not moot, we turn to the issues of mistake, accessorial liability and implied terms.

The crucial finding of his Honour on mistake was based on inference. Rolfe J said that he was prepared to infer that HJPL was acting under a mistake in entering into the Extension Agreements, of which BKC was aware and prepared to take advantage. The question arises as to whether the inference could properly be drawn from the evidence.

This must be examined in light of the fact that Cowin never expressly stated that he was acting under a mistake, when the Extension Agreements were executed by him.

Nor does there appear to be any evidence that the offending clauses, first included in the Extension Agreements of 1 January 1996, were in any direct fashion linked to Montgomery’s advice to BKC on tactics to be adopted with regard to the issue of successor restaurants.

It is true that he advised BKC to “get tough” with HJPL over the successor stores and suggested decisive action by the end of December 1995. However, so far as the evidence goes, the offending clauses were the work of Miolla.

It is therefore necessary to carefully consider the evidence on the issue, particularly that of Cowin. Nonetheless however, when the relevant cross-examination of Cowin is considered, what emerged is that he was labouring under, not one but two serious misapprehensions about the Extension Agreements. The initial mistake was that Cowin did not appreciate that HJPL’s dispute with BKC about the extent of work to be done to bring successor stores up to a requisite standard, and the timing of that work, could be referred to arbitration under the franchise agreement. It is plain that Cowin was unaware of HJPL’s right to arbitrate the disagreements. Moreover, his Honour found that it could be reasonably inferred from Montgomery’s advice to BKC in August 1995 that “Montgomery chose to neglect the right of HJPL to have contentious issues, in relation to the work to be done, arbitrated” .

His Honour added that this must have been clear to BKC. The context, of course, was that Montgomery was the person primarily involved in the day-to-day negotiations concerning successor stores and responsible for the review of work required by BKC in relation thereto. At the same time, he was secretly advising BKC on a number of issues regarding HJPL, including, relevantly, how to deal with the successor restaurants. He advised BKC not to “let up” on the “successor requirements” , to “apply pressure” and “refuse renewal of franchises” and to “serve Cowin notice that you want completion by the end of 1995” .

Indeed, Montgomery’s repeated advice to BKC was to continually pressure Cowin on the successor stores issue, the focus being “to move towards confrontation rather than conciliation” . Montgomery said, in his facsimile to Miolla of 2 October 1995, that BKC needed “to lay down the law for him [Cowin] to comply or risk disenfranchisement of stores in question” .

BKC knew that Montgomery was Cowin’s trusted senior executive. It knew, and indeed sought confirmation from Cowin, that Montgomery would be the HJPL person responsible for successor stores issue. It was aware that Montgomery would not advise Cowin that he could have the dispute arbitrated. It knew, as his Honour found, that Montgomery had a serious conflict of interest.

His Honour also found that Miolla was acting contrary to HJPL’s contractual rights in relation to the successor restaurants in his dealings with Montgomery, who was actively trying to assist BKC.

BKC’s conduct in this regard, as his Honour explained, involved an element of unconscionability in allowing Cowin to proceed on the basis that HJPL’s interests were properly protected by Montgomery, when it knew that this was not the case.

Cowin’s second mistake (or series of mistakes) related to his misapprehension about the franchise agreements and the effect of the Extension Agreements executed after 1 January 1996, on HJPL’s rights of renewal in the franchise agreements. A reading of Cowin’s evidence demonstrates his belief that HJPL had a right to renew the franchise agreement subject to a mutually agreed works programme. However, he believed that BKC held the whip hand on the improvements. Cowin understood that if the parties did not agree within a reasonable time, the restaurants would eventually have to close. In those circumstances, he executed a series of Extension Agreements. These agreements were, until 1 January 1996, relatively anodyne. They did not really affect any of the rights to renewal that HJPL had under the franchise agreements.

However, this changed with the 1 January 1996 Extension Agreements because of the clauses (set out earlier) which Miolla included. In his letter to Cowin, dated 19 December 1995, Miolla referred to the changed form of agreement in passing and only in the following fashion: “The form of Extension Agreement has been supplemented to reflect our need to know with certainty that this will be the last extension and that this matter will be resolved one way or another.”

In cross-examination Miolla said that in drafting the “offending terms” of the new form of extension agreement, he did not think that he was consciously seeking to take away HJPL’s rights in relation to the successor stores which he knew it had.

It is plain from his Honour’s reasons that Miolla was not accepted on this. Rolfe J rejected Miolla’s evidence that the significance of Montgomery’s conflict did not occur to him at the time. His Honour found that Miolla understood that Cowin was acting under a mistake of which he knew that Montgomery would not disabuse Cowin.

His Honour was highly critical of Miolla saying that his approach was “extraordinary” for a trained lawyer.

That Cowin was acting under a mistake as to HJPL’s renewal rights and the effect of the Extension Agreements is exemplified by his answers in cross-examination. In particular, he was asked whether he read cl 3(B) of the Extension Agreement to the effect that BKC had no obligation to allow the franchise restaurant to continue beyond the extended expiration date.

Cowin’s answer was that he would have read it but: “… would have had the comfort of knowing that we had an option of renewing the agreement which said we had to have mutual agreement between what had to be done, which is also a contract.”

As his Honour found, Miolla knew that Cowin was acting under the mistake, of which he knew that Montgomery would not disabuse Cowin nor allow him to realise the true situation. Further, on 4 March 1996 Miolla informed Cowin that BKC would not modify its contractual rights to refuse to renew franchise agreements unless HJPL made capital works acceptable to BKC in its sole discretion. Cowin’s acceptance of this situation meant that Miolla must have known that Cowin was mistaken as to HJPL’s contractual rights. BKC deliberately abstained from disabusing Cowin of his mistaken understanding. Indeed, it was determined to take advantage of the situation. If alerted to the difference in the new Extension Agreement, there is no reason to believe that Cowin would have acquiesced without reflection or the seeking of advice.

When the relevant evidence is considered as a whole, it is apparent that his Honour was entitled to draw the inference that Cowin was acting under a mistake (indeed a number of mistakes) of which BKC was aware and prepared to take advantage. It does not matter that Cowin did not explicitly say that he was acting under the mistake when he executed the relevant Extension Agreements or that Miolla’s offending clauses were not linked directly to Montgomery’s secret advices to BKC on tactics to be adopted over the successor stores.

We do not understand there to be any real dispute as to the applicable legal principle. His Honour cited passages from Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 and referred to Tutt v Doyle (1997) 42 NSWLR 10. Applying Taylor , it is clear from the evidence and the available inferences that Cowin entered into the Extension Agreements under a serious mistake or misapprehension as to the content of a fundamental term. Further, BKC was aware of the mistake and deliberately set out to ensure that Cowin did not become so aware. Moreover, it is apparent that there was also Cowin’s mistake relating to the arbitration provision and the disagreement as to capital works, of which mistake BKC was aware, and it was also aware that Montgomery would not tell Cowin.

Justice between the parties would, in all of the circumstances, find it unfair to hold the mistaken party to the written contract.

Tutt makes it plain that the mistake may not be limited to the precise terms of the particular agreement: see Handley JA at 14. This is sufficient to dispose of BKC’s submission that Cowin’s mistake related to the effect of the franchise agreements and not the Extension Agreements. In any event, as the facts demonstrate, Cowin was labouring under a mistake as to both. Accessory Liability

BKC attacks his Honour’s finding that it acted dishonestly or with lack of probity in failing to advise Cowin of Montgomery’s activities and in accepting his actions so as to be affected by his breach of fiduciary duties.

BKC submits that it was under no obligation or duty to advise Cowin of Montgomery’s activities. Further, Montgomery and not BKC owed fiduciary duties to HJPL. It follows, so the submission goes, that the conclusion of his Honour that BKC should not be permitted to benefit from its own wrongdoing was misconceived.

However, BKC’s submission appears to avoid the point of his Honour’s finding that it was BKC’s actions, in associating itself with Montgomery’s conduct and in making use of his advice and information for its own commercial advantage, which resulted in it becoming liable for “knowing involvement” in Montgomery’s breach of his fiduciary duties to HJPL. Nowhere does Rolfe J suggest that BKC owed a fiduciary duty to HJPL with regard to the successor stores. What his Honour found, and there was ample evidence to support it, was that BKC was a knowing participant in Montgomery’s breach of fiduciary duty and chose to remain silent and take the benefit of Montgomery’s breach. In this way it was liable to HJPL in equity according to the principles discussed in Royal Brunei .

In Royal Brunei at 389 to 392, the Privy Council said: “… in the context of the accessory liability principle acting dishonestly, or with a lack of probity, which is synonymous, means simply not acting as an honest person would in the circumstances. This is an objective standard.” and “The analysis of the position of the accessory, such as the solicitor who carries through the transaction for him, does not lead to such a simple, clear-cut answer in every case. He is required to act honestly; but what is required of an honest person in these circumstances? An honest person knows there is doubt. What does honesty require him to do?” and “Before leaving cases where there is real doubt, one further point should be noted. To inquire, in such cases, whether a person dishonestly assisted in what is later held to be a breach of trust is to ask a meaningful question, which is capable of being given a meaningful answer. This is not always so if the question is posed in terms of ‘knowingly’ assisted. Framing the question in the latter form all too often leads one into tortuous convolutions about the “sort” of knowledge required, when the truth is that “knowingly” is inapt as a criterion when applied to the gradually darkening spectrum where the differences are of degree and not kind.” and lastly, “Drawing the threads together, their Lordships’ overall conclusion is that dishonesty is a necessary ingredient of accessory liability. It is also a sufficient ingredient. A liability in equity to make good resulting loss attaches to a person who dishonestly procures or assists in a breach of trust or fiduciary obligation. It is not necessary that, in addition, the trustee or fiduciary was acting dishonestly, although this will usually be so where the third party who is assisting him is acting dishonestly. ‘Knowingly’ is better avoided as a defining ingredient of the principle. …”

The non disclosed facts (of Montgomery’s facsimiles to BKC) were clearly material in the sense explained in Brickenden . Lord Thankerton said at 469: “Once the Court has determined that the non-disclosed facts were material, speculation as to what course the constituent, on disclosure, would have taken is not relevant.”

BKC does not now suggest that it did not know that Montgomery had a serious conflict of interest, as the trusted adviser of Cowin in relation to the successor stores issue. Nor does it suggest that Montgomery did not act in breach of his fiduciary duties to HJPL. Indeed, there is a considerable body of evidence to support these findings. It is plain that Montgomery was furnishing BKC with information and advice during the relevant period in order to assist BKC in its aim to force HJPL to sell or enter into some form of joint venture. Montgomery repeatedly advised BKC of the commercial weaknesses he saw in HJPL (and in Cowin’s judgment in particular). Each of the officers in BKC who received Montgomery’s information, Miolla, Fitzjohn, Hothorn and Power, appreciated or ought to have appreciated, that what Montgomery was doing was commercially, indeed morally, wrong. Not only did none of them do anything to stop it, or advise Cowin, they continued to use the information for BKC’s own commercial ends. Clearly they knew the significance of what they and Montgomery were doing at the time. They were simply content to use Montgomery’s information to better BKC’s position vis-a-vis HJPL. Rolfe J was entitled to reject the officers’ ex-post facto attempts at explanations justifying their conduct. In our view, as Rolfe J found, their conduct in accepting and relying on Montgomery’s advice, while remaining silent, was commercially reprehensible and unjustifiable.

One example, highlighted by his Honour, was Montgomery’s advice to BKC that it should “not let up on successor requirements” which was conveyed by Power to Blauer, Fitzjohn, Hothorn and Miolla on 18 August 1995. His Honour inferred, as we mentioned earlier, that Montgomery chose to neglect HJPL’s rights to have the contentious issues about the work to be done to the successor restaurants arbitrated. According to his Honour, and it is an inference well open on the evidence, so much must have been clear to BKC.

BKC’s wrongdoing, according to his Honour, was its complicity in the breach by Montgomery of his fiduciary duties to HJPL. It appears to us that the evidence justified his Honour’s finding that BKC acted dishonestly or with lack of probity (in the manner explained in Royal Brunei ), with regard to Montgomery’s breach of his fiduciary duties to HJPL.

The facts and inferences found by Rolfe J establish BKC’s accessory liability to Montgomery’s breach of fiduciary duty. BKC knowingly assisted a fiduciary in his breach of duty. In our opinion, Rolfe J was entitled to find BKC’s conduct dishonest or lacking in probity. There was thus created “a liability in equity to make good [the] resulting loss” which attaches to BKC which “dishonestly procures or assists in a breach of trust or fiduciary obligation” ( Royal Brunei at 392). This reasoning has been followed in a number of Australian courts: see for example ASC v AS Nominees Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 1; Forestview Nominees Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee WA Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 154; and Beach Petroleum NL v Abbott Tout Russell Kennedy (1999) 48 NSWLR 1.

BKC’s conduct, in relation to its dealings with Montgomery and its knowing participation and assistance in his breach of fiduciary duty, was causative of HJPL’s signing of the Extension Agreements and its exposure to loss of renewal rights under cl IX of the franchise agreements. Had Cowin been told of Montgomery’s dealings with BKC, his Honour found that he would have removed Montgomery from his position of responsibility and taken steps to protect HJPL’s interests. Implied Terms of Reasonableness and Good Faith in the Franchise Agreement

His Honour found that implied terms of reasonableness and good faith are to be imputed into the franchise agreement. Further, his Honour found that those terms had been breached by BKC’s “failing to draw HJPL’s attention to Montgomery’s conduct” . Given our earlier discussion of the implication of these terms into the Development Agreement and the nature of the franchise agreement and its interrelationship with the Development Agreement, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of his Honour’s finding of the implication and breach. However, given our conclusions on mistake, accessory liability and the moot point, we stay from further discussion on this issue. Construction of cl IX

Alternatively, BKC submitted that if his Honour correctly set aside the Extension Agreements, then his construction of cl IX of the franchise agreements was incorrect. The principal difference between the parties centres around proviso A to cl IX. HJPL had submitted that there was no need to enter into a concluded agreement with regard to the carrying out of capital expenditure. Rather, what was required was an agreement to carry out such work as agreed, or held by arbitration to be necessary. BKC’s submission was to the contrary, namely, a concluded agreement was required as to the work to be done before a fresh franchise agreement would be granted. His Honour preferred the construction advanced by HJPL.

Rolfe J said that he: “[did] not think it would be consistent with the agreement to require HJPL to do more than agree to carry out the work ultimately agreed or held to be necessary, without its being assured that the option would be exercised.”

BKC submitted that his Honour’s interpretation is in error for two principal reasons. First, such a construction would leave BKC (as franchisor) in a position of considerable uncertainty. This could not have been intended by the parties at the time of contract. The whole purpose of the clause was to enable BKC to ensure that the new franchise would be in an appropriate condition to commence upon the expiration of the old term. Secondly, his Honour’s construction robs the agreement of any significant meaning since the obligation of the franchisee to conduct the business so as to meet BKC’s specifications was already required by the franchise agreement.

As to the first submission, it fails to give any weight to the words “shall agree to make” in cl IX(A). The clause does not provide that before accepting BKC’s offer of a new franchise agreement, HJPL had to have made such capital expenditures as BKC required. What the clause does is to require HJPL to agree to perform works, as a condition of its acceptance of the offer by BKC.

There is no relevant uncertainty since BKC has a contractual right to require HJPL to perform works to the requisite standard, had HJPL not complied with its agreement so to do.

In our opinion, cl IX(A) is not robbed of meaning. The clause provides a mechanism to secure the franchisee’s agreement to make such further capital expenditure as BKC reasonably requires to bring the restaurant up to the current image of Burger King restaurants as a condition of accepting BKC’s offer of a new franchise agreement. The clause has substance and content to secure that result. THE MURRAY STREET APPEAL

Our discussion of the moot point in relation to the orders made by his Honour requiring HJPL to be offered successor agreements for ten stores (including Murray Street) means that the separate appeal on Murray Street must fail. That the issue sought to be raised by BKC on that appeal should be seen as moot is reinforced by the facts relating to Murray Street, which have been discussed earlier in our judgment. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to deal with BKC’s submission regarding the construction placed on cl IX of the franchise agreement by his Honour in the separate Murray Street proceedings. This appeal should be dismissed. THE 1997 NOTICE OF TERMINATION

The 1997 Notice of Termination was issued after the proceedings commenced. It was given subject to the Shorter and Longer Notices and against the possibility that those earlier notices were ineffective to validly terminate the Development Agreement.

The notice relied on a number of different breaches. It included the continuation of the operation of eight restaurants (including Murray Street) after the expiry of the relevant franchise agreements and, where applicable, the Extension Agreements. The issue of the Extension Agreements and successor restaurants, having been found against the appellant earlier in this judgment, means that these alleged breaches fall away. His Honour set aside the offending Extension Agreements and ordered BKC to offer new franchise agreements to HJPL. In any event, his Honour found that BKC’s conduct amounted to a waiver or constituted an estoppel. This conclusion was, in our view, correct and open on the evidence.

The next allegation in the notice relates to a Coca-Cola Show bag and a promotion run by HJPL at the Sydney Easter Show. The claim was a failure to have the sales promotion authorised by BKC. His Honour was right to reject this alleged breach for the same reasons he had given concerning the alleged “advertising” breaches in the Longer Notice.

The claimed breach relating to the sale of unauthorised products was not pursued at the trial. That leaves the allegation of failure to properly use trade marks. The first of such concerned the colour of the “bun halves” logo on promotional material associated with a football team. According to the evidence, the material was withdrawn from use in May 1997, four months before the notice was given. No notice under cl 6.5 had been given by BKC, nor any notice to cure under cl 15.2. This breach was capable of cure and HJPL ceased use of the material some four months prior to the 1997 Notice of Termination. There was, therefore, no breach which could be relied upon to validly terminate the Development Agreement.

The next matter related to an in-store “Eagles” competition promotion in 1997 and concerned an allegation of incorrect use of the Hungry Jack’s trade mark and the “bun halves” logo mark. The evidence demonstrated that there was no breach as claimed. In any event, again no notice under cl 6.5 was given, nor notice to cure under cl 15.2.

There was also an alleged breach relating to the failure to include the ® symbol on a car combo sticker in a promotion. The evidence was that the symbol would have been too small to be legible on the car sticker. If this be a breach we consider it to be de minimis . As previously stated, BKC conceded that de minimis breaches did not fall within the Development Agreement.

The final alleged breach related to the use of an incorrect colour on the “bun halves” logo, in a coupon promotion at a restaurant at Kalgoorlie. It is an example of the minutiae of some of the alleged breaches sought to be relied on by the appellant. Again, no notice under cl 6.5 or notice to cure under cl 15.2 was given. In our opinion, his Honour was correct to conclude that the 1997 Notice of Termination was not valid and effective to terminate the Development Agreement. THE SHELL CASE

Rolfe J found for HJPL on its claim for equitable compensation for lost service royalties arising out of the operation of Burger King restaurants at Shell service stations. His Honour awarded $1,515,428 in compensation, finding that BKC had breached its fiduciary duties to HJPL by reason of its exclusion of HJPL from the development of these restaurants.

The essential facts relating to the Shell case are set out in the Schedule of Facts and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The facts as found led his Honour to make a number of findings. A central finding was that from March 1994 BKC was proceeding, with HJPL, on a path of investigating a long term joint venture arrangement and one not confined to the test site arrangements. Further, that it was the clear expectation of both BKC and HJPL that the test sites were being pursued in the context of a potentially longer term relationship of joint venturers.

Moreover, notwithstanding that Shell advised BKC in early 1995 that it was not prepared to proceed with HJPL, BKC officers continued to allow HJPL to invest not insubstantial time and money on the project, on HJPL’s understanding that the arrangements would be a long term tripartite agreement.

His Honour found that not only did BKC fail to advise HJPL of Shell’s change of heart, but it actively took advantage of this in order to bring about a situation where it would deal with Shell alone, to the exclusion of HJPL.

Rolfe J accepted HJPL’s submission that the fact that the parties were negotiating to bring about a final agreement for the long term development proposal, and were taking preliminary steps on test sites, gave rise to a series of fiduciary duties owed by BKC to HJPL.

In this context his Honour found that: “On 1 March 1995 Mr Fitzjohn had a conference telephone call with Mr Power and two representatives of Host Marriott, after which Mr Power sent a note of the conversation to Mr Miolla, which stated, inter alia, that Shell was not interested in moving forward with HJPL, but wanted BKC, including the brand name. Host Marriott was seen as a possible substitute for HJPL. It was made absolutely clear that Shell was seeking to proceed with BKC. Various attempts to explain away this evidence by Mr Fitzjohn and Mr Power should, in my view, be rejected. They were quite spurious and it was obvious that by 1 March 1995 Shell had made it clear to BKC that it wished to continue with BKC. BKC did nothing to dissuade it from that attitude nor to advise HJPL. Mr Power expressed his obvious reservations about the situation in the memorandum to Mr Fitzjohn of 21 March 1995. It is clear he appreciated that there was, at the least, the possibility that BKC was allowing the position to be misrepresented to HJPL. Mr Fitzjohn agreed that Mr Power’s memorandum raised problems associated with not informing HJPL of Shell’s attitude; that he had been conscious of those problems from early February; but that he did nothing to remove them until mid-May 1995. Mr Miolla agreed that at least by 21 March 1995 he was aware that Mr Power held the view that Shell wished to proceed with BKC and not HJPL, and that he did not recall any conversation in which anyone from BKC took the view that Shell should be discouraged from adopting that course, not did he see any document taking that stance. I am satisfied BKC never adopted that attitude, its reason being that it suited its overall strategy of developing the market in Australia, in the way it wished, to have Shell abandon HJPL. BKC was content with that course, once it was satisfied that Shell was committed to it. Those arrangements were being entered into behind HJPL’s back and whilst notwithstanding their existence and BKC’s and Shell’s obvious knowledge of them, HJPL was being allowed to continue to expend time and money to advance the joint venture not knowing that the others had no intention of doing so. In my opinion, BKC’s approach, in all the (sic) these circumstances, was thoroughly discreditable.”

His Honour found that the true explanation of why BKC did not inform HJPL of Shell’s changed attitude until much later was that BKC wished to ensure that it achieved finality with Shell before informing HJPL. Worse still, according to his Honour, BKC deliberately diverted HJPL’s attention away from another oil company, Mobil, to make BKC’s position with Shell more attractive. This was done in the knowledge that HJPL would be excluded from the Shell venture. Not only did BKC fail to advise HJPL of the true position, it actively misled HJPL for its own benefit and in circumstances where it was under an obligation to advise HJPL of the facts.

According to his Honour, this was not only commercially immoral but constituted a breach of fiduciary duty owed to HJPL.

Bearing in mind the significant profits generated at the test sites and the success of the arrangement, his Honour found that had BKC insisted on a tripartite joint venture, Shell would have acquiesced.

Rolfe J found that BKC breached its fiduciary obligations to HJPL in three ways: (i) by encouraging Shell to go ahead without HJPL’s involvement; (ii) by taking the benefit of the service royalties from the Shell restaurants to HJPL’s exclusion; and (iii) by withholding advice from HJPL that negotiations were taking place with Shell behind HJPL’s back.

Rolfe J also found that, by its introduction of Shell to BKC, HJPL was an effective cause, indeed probably the effective cause, of Shell becoming interested in adopting the Hungry Jacks brand and becoming interested in dealing with BKC.

The facts, as found by his Honour, gave rise to a sufficient relationship to establish fiduciary duties notwithstanding that there was no concluded agreement and that a long term agreement was dependant on the success of the test agreement.

His Honour summarised the situation thus: “The parties were working towards a long-term agreement, provided the test was successful, and, in pursuance of that, HJPL was, to the knowledge of BKC and Shell, expending time and money. No party had any intention to enter into a long-term relationship at that time, but the arrangements into which they entered created, in the view to which I have come, fiduciary obligations between them, which were breached by BKC and Shell prior to the entry into the Tripartite Test Agreement. This was reinforced by the undoubted fact, established by the evidence, that all parties considered the Tripartite Test Agreement would be successful.” and later: “… whilst the parties were obviously negotiating, the circumstances in which they were doing so, including the activities in which they were engaging, precluded them from acting contrary to those arrangements and the mutually held expectations that, in all probability, a longer term agreement would be reached, unless and until those arrangements were terminated. The position, as I see it, which the evidence disclosed, was one of sinister simplicity. Three parties were purportedly working together to achieve a result, which would be for the financial benefit of all and to which each was making a relevant commercial contribution. Two of those parties, unknown to the third, were engaging in their own private negotiations to achieve substantially the same objective but to the exclusion of the third party.”

BKC submitted that his Honour was in error in concluding that the relationship between the parties gave rise to fiduciary duties. BKC challenged a number of his Honour’s findings of fact, in particular, that the test was a success from the point of view of BKC and Shell. Further, it is disputed that had BKC insisted that Shell proceed with HJPL, Shell would have acquiesced.

In BKC’s submission the parties had not passed beyond the mere negotiation of any long term relationship for the development of the concept. They had not, so it was submitted, embarked on the development of the concept in the context of a long term relationship. There was an arrangement to test the concept but the concept was new, risky and unclear as to compatibility of the three organisations in the context of the operation. The parties had abstained from any commitment beyond the test phase. They wanted to see how it worked before committing themselves.

It is important to emphasise that BKC accepted that if fiduciary duties existed, it had breached them.

The essence of BKC’s submission was that there was no fiduciary relationship because the parties abstained from commitment to a long term relationship and as to who would be the participants in any long term venture. Senior counsel for BKC submitted that there was no commitment as to the structure or content of a long term relationship. The test site agreement was only to test the concept and compatibility but the parties had not committed their commercial interests to one another. They remained in negotiation about a possible future long term venture. They were, according to Mr Archibald QC, still negotiating with no present commitment.

In his discussion of fiduciary duties between prospective partners or joint venturers, Rolfe J quoted from the joint judgment of Mason, Brennan and Deane JJ in United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1 at 12. It bears repeating and is as follows: “A fiduciary relationship can arise and fiduciary duties can exist between parties who have not reached, and who may never reach, agreement upon the consensual terms which are to govern the arrangement between them. In particular, a fiduciary relationship with attendant fiduciary obligations may, and ordinarily will, exist between prospective partners who have embarked upon the conduct of the partnership business or venture before the precise terms of any partnership agreement have been settled. Indeed, in such circumstances, the mutual confidence and trust which underlie most consensual fiduciary relationships are likely to be more readily apparent than in the case where mutual rights and obligations have been expressly defined in some formal agreement. Likewise, the relationship between prospective partners or participants in a proposed partnership to carry out a single joint undertaking or endeavour will ordinarily be fiduciary if the prospective partners have reached an informal arrangement to assume such a relationship and have proceeded to take steps involved in its establishment or implementation.”

Rolfe J found, on the facts, that the parties had passed beyond “mere” negotiation to a stage identified by their Honours in Brian . We agree with his Honour that the passage quoted is apposite to the facts of this appeal.

Fundamental to the existence of a fiduciary relationship is mutual confidence and trust. Here, the facts discussed in the Schedule belie BKC’s submission that the parties had abstained from commitment to a long term relationship and as to who would be the participants in any long term venture. It is readily apparent from the evidence that the parties regarded the test sites as a success. BKC certainly did, according to the finding of his Honour which was not challenged on appeal, and proceeded with Shell to develop 14 co-branded sites. At all points of time up to BKC’s letter of 15 May 1995 to Cowin, breaking the news that there would be no tripartite long term joint venture with Shell, BKC positively encouraged HJPL to believe that the joint project was developing satisfactorily. It encouraged HJPL to continue to invest not inconsiderable time, effort and money. HJPL complied.

At least three aspects of BKC’s letter of 15 May 1995 ought be highlighted. First, it was sent several months after BKC knew of Shell’s reservations about HJPL. BKC quite consciously refrained from advising HJPL of the true position in circumstances where, as his Honour observed, it was under an obligation so to do. Secondly, it is apparent that Montgomery knew of BKC’s decision well before Cowin was informed on 15 May 1995. His Honour found that the proper inference to draw was that BKC did not advise Cowin earlier because it took Montgomery’s advice as to when to inform Cowin. Third, the letter contained a number of falsities, as Fitzjohn admitted. It included significant inaccuracies and was misleading in a number of respects. As Rolfe J said, when BKC finally advised Cowin, it did so in terms which lacked both veracity and frankness. In our view, his Honour was correct to describe the letter thus and as “a continuation of BKC’s wholly discreditable conduct in relation to this issue” .

There was also evidence before the Court which justified his Honour’s conclusion that BKC exploited Shell’s reservations about HJPL for its own perceived commercial advantage. BKC took advantage of HJPL’s vulnerability to be excluded from any long term arrangement with Shell. HJPL was clearly left in a vulnerable position by BKC’s failure to disclose the true situation to it.

One other matter is also plain on the evidence. The primary reason why BKC delayed breaking the news to HJPL was that it wanted to keep HJPL “dangling” until it had a binding commitment from Shell to proceed with a joint venture to the exclusion of HJPL.

We see no inconsistency between the existence of fiduciary duties between the parties, and the test site agreement. The test site agreement was part of the tripartite venture to determine whether the project would be successful and profitable and to proceed with a long term arrangement. This arrangement was never confined to the test sites. There is ample evidence that the parties were proceeding to identify large numbers of sites appropriate for the long term venture. BKC clearly encouraged HJPL’s endeavours in this respect. The fact that negotiations were continuing as to the detail of the long term relationship does not mean that there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties.

On an examination of the evidence we agree with Rolfe J’s conclusion that the parties had well and truly passed beyond “mere” negotiation and that their relationship was undoubtedly a fiduciary one. We reject BKC’s submission that the parties deliberately abstained from any commitment to a long term relationship. The evidence and available inferences are to the contrary.

There is one further issue regarding the Shell case which may be disposed of briefly. It affects the issue of damages with respect to royalty entitlements. BKC submitted that HJPL did not “introduce” Shell so that Shell became a “designated franchisee” . The definition of “designated franchisee” in the Service Agreement includes “franchisees of BKC introduced by Hungry Jack’s to BKC” . It argued that HJPL’s introduction of Shell to BKC was only of Shell’s interest and not as a franchisee to a franchise agreement.

His Honour held that “introduced” should be given a wide meaning leaving the factual question of whether there was sufficient activity by HJPL to justify a finding that it “introduced” Shell to the concept. His Honour found that there was sufficient evidence of introduction.

Rolfe J said that the evidence satisfied him that HJPL was “an” effective cause, indeed probably “the” effective cause, of Shell becoming interested in adopting the Hungry Jack’s brand and becoming interested in dealing with BKC. These were findings which were open to his Honour to make on the evidence. We also agree with his Honour’s construction of the relevant provisions of the Service Agreement. DAMAGES Introduction

BKC did not challenge Rolfe J’s findings that HJPL would, but for the operational disapproval, the withholding of financial approval, the freeze on the recruitment of third party franchises and the purported terminations of the Development Agreement, have continued to expand its business. HJPL estimated its damages under four heads. The first two heads were based on loss of opportunity and flowed from HJPL’s inability itself to open Hungry Jack’s restaurants and to introduce other franchisees to BKC during the period after May or August 1995 until 31 December 1999.

The third head of HJPL’s claim was for equitable compensation based on the loss of service royalties for Hungry Jack’s restaurants opened on Shell service station sites which HJPL would have earned even though it did not itself operate those restaurants.

Fourthly, HJPL claimed damages for losses it suffered in restaurants it operated, the sales of which were affected by the opening of restaurants on Shell service station sites. As mentioned earlier, this was described as the “cannibalisation” claim.

Rolfe J awarded HJPL damages under these four heads as follows: (i) $43,522,200 for delay in opening company owned restaurants. Rolfe J arrived at a figure based on HJPL’s expert report of $96,716,000 which he discounted for vicissitudes by 55% to the amount awarded. The parties have agreed that the calculation was erroneous and that $85,265,000 should be substituted for $96,716,000 (see exhibit A) which, after allowing the contingency discount of 55%, reduced the damages under this head to $38,369,250; (ii) $23,955,000 for loss of the opportunity to introduce third party franchisees; (iii) $1,515,428 for equitable compensation for the loss of service royalties for restaurants opened at seven Shell service stations; and (iv) $1,852,800 for “cannibalisation” claims, the result of BKC’s authorising Shell to open three restaurants in breach of the Development Agreement. The total amount awarded was $70,845,428. After setting out the amounts of damage under each head and the total, which should now by agreement and subject to the outcome of the appeal and cross-appeal, be reduced to $65,692,478, Rolfe J remarked: “The damages are payable, prima facie, from the date of breach and interest will have to be calculated” First and Second Heads of Damage

HJPL claimed that it had been wrongly delayed during the period from 1 September 1995 to 31 December 1999 from opening at least 17 company owned restaurants per year. The claim was formulated on the basis that after 31 December 1999, an arbitrary date chosen as the date when judgment would be given (in fact it was given earlier on 5 November 1999), HJPL would have opened new restaurants progressively to make up for the restaurants lost during the 1995/1999 period. It was assumed that this recoupment would take until 30 June 2013. Furthermore, the calculation assumed that the restaurants lost and then recouped would each have enjoyed a 20 franchise term from BKC and in accordance with the franchise agreement would have been extended for a further 20 years so that the total period of the franchise would have been 40 years. HJPL no longer disputes Rolfe J’s conclusion that the calculation of loss should be done on a cash-flow, that is to say, cash in - cash out, basis rather than a profits basis. HJPL submitted, and Rolfe J accepted, that under these heads the discount rate to arrive at present value should be 9%. HJPL’s expert adopted three alternative samples to represent the type of restaurant which would have been opened in the relevant period described as Sample 1, made up of new or refurbished restaurants, Sample 2, made up of 33 restaurants opened by HJPL between December 1992 and May 1996 and “all stores” made up of all restaurants whenever opened by HJPL. Rolfe J used the calculation based upon Sample 1.

The second head of damages flowed from HJPL’s loss of the opportunity to introduce third party franchisees in the period from May 1995. Under the terms of the Service Agreement, as amended by an agreement dated 12 December 1991, HJPL was entitled to an initial fee of US$15,000 in relation to each restaurant opened by a franchisee introduced by it to BKC and a monthly service royalty of 2.5% of gross receipts at that restaurant. The damages awarded under this head proceeded on the basis that, but for BKC’s refusal to permit HJPL to introduce third party franchisees, HJPL would have introduced, during the period up to 31 December 1999, 77 franchisees who would have opened restaurants during that period. Under this head HJPL’s claim was not for delay and assumed recoupment but for the loss of the franchisee who, it was assumed, would, if unable to obtain a franchise to operate a Hungry Jack’s restaurant, have sought a franchise from another fast food operator. Rolfe J accepted HJPL’s claim, based on the 9% discount rate for present value as at 31 December 1999 of $39,925,000 but discounted this for contingencies by 40% because he was of opinion that the contingencies involved were not quite as great as those involved in the claim for delay in opening company restaurants. First Head of Damages - Delay in Opening Company Restaurants

In relation to the first head of damage based on the alleged delay in opening company restaurants, Rolfe J said: “In the present case I consider that the probability is that HJPL would have continued to develop restaurants, but for the breach by BKC. However, I cannot be ‘practically certain’, to the extent of 99%, that such development would have proceeded, over each of the five years, at the rate of 17 restaurants per year. Therefore, I must take the chance that it would not have into account. The fact that I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that HJPL would have proceeded to develop restaurants, does not entitle it, as a matter of law, to all the damages it claims on the hypothesis that it would have developed 17 restaurants each year, because I must assess that there was a risk that that might not have happened, such adjustment reflecting the chance that factors unconnected with the breach might have precluded its happening.”

The phrase “practically certain” comes from the judgment of Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ in Malec v J C Hutton Pty Limited (1990) 169 CLR 638 at 642-3 where their Honours discussed how damages should be assessed to allow for an event which it is alleged would have occurred but cannot now occur, or might or might not yet occur. Their Honours said: “The future may be predicted and the hypothetical may be conjectured. But questions as to the future or hypothetical effect of physical injury or degeneration are not commonly susceptible of scientific demonstration or proof. If the law is to take account of future or hypothetical events in assessing damages, it can only do so in terms of the degree of probability of those events occurring. The probability may be very high - 99.9% - or very low - 0.1%. But unless the chance is so low as to be regarded as speculative - say less than 1% - or so high as to be practically certain - say over 99% - the Court will take that chance into account in assessing the damages.”

In Malec the plaintiff, who was diagnosed as suffering from brucellosis while employed by the defendant as a labourer, claimed that he had contracted the disease as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The trial judge found that the plaintiff had contracted acute brucellosis as the result of the defendant’s negligence but was not satisfied that the plaintiff’s subsequent spinal condition was a consequence of contracting brucellosis. He was however satisfied that a neurotic illness diagnosed later than the brucellosis “was precipitated by brucellosis” . Nevertheless the Judge found that it was at least as probable as not that the neurotic condition from which the plaintiff suffered at the time of the trial was not related to the brucellosis he had contracted while working for the defendant. This latter finding was reversed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Full Court held that the plaintiff’s damages should be assessed on the basis that his neurotic condition at the time of the trial was caused by depression induced by acute brucellosis.

In the High Court Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed at 644-5: “… .in determining the chance that unemployability as the result of his back condition would have precipitated a similar neurotic condition, it is necessary to bear in mind that more than one probability is involved. There is the degree of probability that the plaintiff would have become unemployable in any event as the result of his back condition and there is the degree of probability that the happening of that occurrence would have precipitated a neurotic condition. When those probabilities are combined, the chance that the plaintiff would develop a neurotic condition decreases exponentially. If, for example, and only by way of illustration, there was a 75% probability of his becoming unemployable by reason of his back condition even if he had not contracted brucellosis and a 75% chance that that unemployability would have caused a similar neurotic condition, there was only a 56.25% chance (75% X 75%) that, if he had not contracted brucellosis, he would have developed a similar neurotic condition. … The plaintiff is entitled to damages for pain and suffering on the basis that his neurotic condition is the direct result of the defendant’s negligence. Those damages must be reduced, however, to take account of the chance that factors, unconnected with the defendant’s negligence, might have brought about the onset of a similar neurotic condition.”

Rolfe J found on the probabilities that HJPL would have continued to develop restaurants, but for the breach by BKC. His Honour was satisfied that BKC’s breach of contract had caused HJPL to lose the opportunity to develop further restaurants and introduce franchisees. A step in assessing the damages for the loss of this chance was to estimate the number of restaurants that would have been opened and the number of franchisees that would have been introduced during the four and a half year period from late 1995 to 31 December 1999.

The next step was to assess the value of the opportunity lost. In Poseidon Ltd & Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 Mason CJ and Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said at 355 that: “… the general standard of proof in civil actions will ordinarily govern the issue of causation and the issue whether the applicant has sustained loss or damage. Hence the applicant must prove on the balance of probabilities that he or she has sustained some loss or damage. However, in a case such as the present, the applicant shows some loss or damage was sustained by demonstrating that the contravening conduct caused the loss of a commercial opportunity which had some value (not being a negligible value) the value being ascertained by reference to the degree of probabilities or possibilities.”

In Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438 Clarke and Sheller JJA, with whom on this point Powell JA agreed, said at 530: “… the issue of causation should be approached upon the basis of proof, upon the balance of probabilities with the qualification that an assessment of whether the chance which is said to have been lost had a value is to be made upon the possibilities or probabilities of the case.”

Norris v Blake [No 2] (1997) 41 NSWLR 49 concerned the assessment of damages recoverable by a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff was an actor who had good prospects of a very successful film career including the prospects of becoming a major international star. The trial judge awarded him over $29 million for future economic loss. This Court reduced that award to less than $8 million. Clarke JA, with whom Handley and Sheller JJA agreed, referred inter alia to Malec , McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 at 411-2, Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 at 134-5, Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Limited (1991) 174 CLR 64 and Poseiden Ltd & Sellars and said, at 68-69: “There is nothing in any of the judgments of the High Court (except perhaps the reference to percentages in the majority judgment in Malec ) which supports the adoption of a scientific, or quasi scientific, approach to the assessment of damages in a case in which there is a requirement that account be taken of future possibilities and past hypothetical situations. That is not to say that where a scientific method is available it should not be adopted. Indeed, in my opinion, if there is evidence in a case capable of demonstrating that a particular scientific approach is likely to reach a more accurate assessment than an intuitive judicial approach then, provided full weight is given to the uncertain nature of the future, there is no reason for failing to adopt that method. The theory behind the approach in Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 is that the defendant’s breach of contract or tort has caused the plaintiff to lose an opportunity or chance which has some value. The chance may be a gain or a loss. In simple terms it is possible to buy a chance to win an amount of money if a particular horse wins a race. On the other hand, the owner of property may pay a premium which entitles it to a sum of money if the property is destroyed by fire. The measure of the value of the chance is the price represented by the wager or the premium. Almost invariably this will be measured by known facts such as the horse’s racing history or the state of the track, or the susceptibility of the property to fire. It will also be affected by the vendor’s, the bookmaker’s or the insurer’s willingness to accept the risk that the horse may win or the property be destroyed. The chance may be spoken of in various ways including percentages. Thus the legal adviser may tell the client that the case has an X% chance of success. But though based on known facts, the state of the law, the availability of witnesses and so on, even in the simplest examples such language masks the imprecision of the estimate.”

Clarke JA then quoted from an essay by Lord Keynes in the chapter “The Meaning of Probability” in the essays gathered in Treatise on Probability (1973) at 29 and an article written by Hodgson J (as he then was) on “Probability and Proof in Legal Fact Finding” (1995) 69 ALJ 731. In the first of these quotations, Lord Keynes said of Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 that the probability could be by no means estimated with numerical precision. In the second, Hodgson J said that, generally, considerations for and against particular findings of fact cannot be expressed in numbers to which one can apply quantitative rules so as to arrive at a numerical probability. His Honour said “… decision making generally involves a global assessment of a whole complex array of matters which cannot be given individual numerical expression” . Hodgson J warned that concentration on mathematical probabilities can prejudice the commonsense process which depends upon experience of the world and beliefs as to how people generally behave.

Clarke JA said: “It may be that it is possible to apply a mathematical theory of probabilities, or a doctrine of averaging, in a case in which the chances are limited and there is sufficient data on which to reach a conclusion as to the particular degree of chance.”

In Fightvision Pty Limited v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473 the Court said at 505-6 by reference to Norris v Blake [No 2] : “It is not essential, however, in making an assessment of damages of this kind to express a percentage possibility or probability of the occurrence of the events necessary for the claimed loss of profits, here the number of fights and the amounts of earnings. … Therefore the customary course of taking a hypothetical exercise of an uninjured earning capacity until retirement, then making an allowance for vicissitudes, is a way of arriving at the degree of probability of the future hypothetical event of the exercise of that earning capacity. Although in many cases the hypothetical exercise of earning capacity is not controversial, it may be, so that the vicissitudes include allowance for the validity of the hypothesis as well as for the imponderables or chances affecting its realisation. … It can make no difference in principle if a past hypothetical event is in question rather than a future hypothetical event, or if damages for loss of profits rather than for lost earning capacity is in question.”

In the context of this appeal it is significant that the Court acknowledged that the discount for vicissitudes may include an allowance for the validity of the hypothesis.

In the case where an injured plaintiff seeks compensation for future economic loss it would be commonplace for the trial judge to take account of loss of earnings by reference to earnings immediately before the injury and prospects of future advancement. The starting point of the calculation will be an estimate of what the plaintiff would, but for the injury, have earned during the rest of his or her working life. Having calculated the present value of this loss of future earnings, a discount will be made for vicissitudes which will allow for the validity of the hypothesis and include the possibility that the plaintiff’s earnings, but for the injury, may have been higher or lower. Sometimes more will be known, for example that, quite separately from the particular injury the basis of the claim, the plaintiff suffered or might be expected to suffer from some other condition or illness which would in any event have affected his or her earning capacity detrimentally. There may be many such factors on both sides of the ledger. In Norris v Blake [No 2] there was the chance that but for the plaintiff’s injury he would have become an international film star. But such contingencies cannot be translated into numbers or percentages of any precision. The mathematical expression “percentage” is used so that the amount of damages for future economic loss can be quantified in a way which allows for vicissitudes. Percentage is simply a useful way of expressing the allowance so as to enable an adjustment to be made.

In the present case HJPL’s loss, due to BKC’s fault, was the loss of an opportunity to expand its business. There is no reason in principle why the value of that loss should not be measured by the number of restaurants that would otherwise have been opened in the years in question. Of course, as Rolfe J pointed out, the finding to be made is not of what happened but what would have happened. It was appropriate to calculate the discount in a way which had regard to the possibility that HJPL would not have opened 17 new restaurants in each of the years in question or introduced 77 new franchisees during those years. The base chosen was the best estimate of how many restaurants would be opened or how many franchisees would be introduced in the years in question. The degree of the decision-maker’s confidence in that best estimate will be reflected in the discount for contingencies. But without that estimate, the calculation cannot proceed. Moreover, whatever figure is chosen, an allowance must be made for the possibility that it is too low or too high. None of this is scientific but it is the best that the Court can do. There is a danger in using mathematical calculations which may give a false impression that the result is scientifically arrived at or necessarily precise. Four and a Half Years Delay in Opening

The $43,522,200 which Rolfe J awarded (now by agreement adjusted to $38,369,250) for this lost opportunity was calculated “by reference to the cash flow method based on a 9% discount rate for ‘Sample 1’ over a period of 40 years reduced by 55%, namely on the figure of $96,716,000 [an amended figure derived from Gower’s report of 25 August 1999, S2 14695] less 55%, which equals $43,522,200” (now $38,369,250). Rolfe J’s findings and process of reasoning were as follows.

HJPL called an expert accountant, Mr Gower. BKC called an expert accountant, Mr Bryant. Both experts prepared several reports directed to the value of the opportunity lost. Gower was instructed that as a consequence of the withholding of approval under the Development Agreement by BKC, HJPL had been unable to open any new restaurants after August 1995. He was asked to assume that HJPL would, if successful in the proceedings, again begin to open new restaurants from 1 January 2000 and progressively recoup the lost restaurants until the deficiency in number of restaurants was recovered during the year ending 30 June 2013.

Gower was instructed to determine the present value of any recovery of any lost profits at the end of the franchise period for the restaurants lost during the period “August 1995 to 30 June 2001 (sic)” , on the following alternative bases: (i) that, as a matter of practice, BKC renewed franchise agreements for at least a second term, so that the period in which a particular restaurant would remain open would, in practice, be 40 years; (ii) alternatively, that the franchise agreements were not renewed and each restaurant would remain open for 20 years.

Gower observed that the effect of such an approach and the delayed opening of the restaurants would delay the eventual closing date. This would result in a recoupment of some of the earlier lost profits.

One difference between Gower’s approach and Bryant’s approach was that Gower initially calculated the loss by reference to the estimated loss of profits. Bryant preferred to use a cash flow analysis. In his opinion the conventional profit and loss analysis, while sensible for reporting whether or not a company was making a profit in accordance with accounting standards, recorded and allowed for expenditure progressively over the period the asset was used up and ignored the fact that in the years in question HJPL would have been deprived of the use of any cash inflows before any depreciation allowance and saved cash outflows. Rolfe J accepted, and HJPL does not dispute, that the cash flow method of estimating the loss was preferable.

Ultimately, in his report of 25 August 1999, Gower used the cash flow method and so calculated the value of the lost opportunity as an amount which Rolfe J adopted.

Gower was instructed that HJPL would, during the period in question and but for BKC’s interference, have opened new company owned restaurants at a rate of 17 per year. This instruction was confirmed by an estimate Cowin made in his witness statement of 29 March 1999. In para 10 of that statement, Cowin annexed a list of restaurants opened in the period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 which showed 11 restaurants opened in 1990/1991, six in 1991/1992, nine in 1992/1993, ten in 1993/1994 and 17 in 1994/1995. In para 11 he annexed a development plan dated 30 May 1994 prepared by McCarthy, HJPL’s then Franchise Recruitment and Development Manager, for the period 1994/1995 to 1998/1999. On page 9, from a base of existing company owned restaurants of 130 on 30 June 1994, this development plan projected the number of restaurants which would be opened by HJPL and third party franchisees introduced by it to BKC in each State over that period. McCarthy estimated 30 company owned restaurants would be opened in 1994/1995, 17 in 1995/1996, nine in 1996/1997, nine in 1997/1998 and ten in 1998/1999, a total of 75 during the period or an average of 15 per year. Cowin expressed the opinion in his statement that the projected expansion of nine or ten restaurants per year for the years 1996/1997 to 1998/1999 was very conservative. He said: “In my opinion, HJPL would have opened at least 17 company owned restaurants per year in the years 1996/1997 and thereafter, if it had not been disapproved for expansion by BKC. A development rate of that level is equivalent to opening approximately three restaurants in each year in each of the markets in which HJPL operated (Western Australia; South Australia; Queensland; Victoria and New South Wales).”

In para 12 of his statement, Cowin said: “In my opinion, of the 17 stores per year which would have been opened by HJPL in the financial year 1995/1996 and following years, HJPL would have opened a larger number of company stores in each year in New South Wales/ACT and Queensland and a lesser number of stores in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia in each year. In my opinion, an average of four company owned stores a year in each of Queensland and New South Wales, and three company owned stores a year in each of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, would have been realistic. In 1995/6 HJPL would also have opened a ‘Hungry Jack’s’ restaurant in Palmerston, Northern Territory, at a site which it had acquired for that purpose.”

As BKC conceded, these estimates by Cowin were not directly challenged in cross-examination. Rolfe J made the following points about Cowin’s evidence. HJPL’s success was based on Cowin’s business acumen. He had an excellent knowledge of HJPL’s affairs and a clear determination and vision as to how it should be run in the future. Rolfe J had no doubt he was a truthful witness. His overall knowledge and understanding of HJPL’s business and the potential for development was immense and should be afforded the greatest weight. His Honour said: “[Cowin] understood, having run the business for so many years, how it could develop within a viable financial framework and it is his evidence, which, in my opinion, provides the greatest insight into the way in which the business of HJPL would have continued to develop, but for the unjustified actions of BKC.”

McCarthy gave evidence on this issue also. Rolfe J expressed reservations about this evidence on this aspect. In para 104 of his witness statement of 28 January 1998, McCarthy explained his development plan of 30 May 1994 in respect of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and each of the States mentioned. Rolfe J referred to this paragraph in the witness statement and McCarthy’s evidence that in his experience the development process took about six to 12 months from the time that a site was investigated by HJPL until it was put forward for active consideration. His Honour said: “A very real question arose as to whether McCarthy’s evidence of the number of restaurants, which he considered would be built, should be accepted.”

His Honour considered there was much force in BKC’s senior counsel’s criticism of McCarthy’s evidence and in his submissions that minimum weight should be given to the opinion having regard to McCarthy’s failure to look to files, tracking reports and the financial ability of HJPL to pursue the opening of third party franchisee restaurants. His Honour said: “Mr Oslington submitted that on a true analysis of those documents, McCarthy’s opinion was shown to be wrong. However, I think that all that has to be read in the light of two particular matters. Firstly, the freeze put in place in May 1995. Mr Oslington seeks to deal with that in paras 74, 75, 76 and 77 of his written submissions and on the more detailed submissions in relation to damages. In my opinion, it is not possible to divorce that event from the apparent problems so far as third party franchisees were concerned. I consider that BKC’s attitude in this regard was in breach of the agreement and, for the reasons I have given, that HJPL was acquitted from tendering further performance in relation to that aspect of the matter.”

A little later Rolfe J referred to the concession obtained by senior counsel from McCarthy that it was “unlikely in the extreme as of August 1995” that any third party franchisee restaurants would have been opened in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland by the end of 1996. “McCarthy’s answer was unqualified” . In his Honour’s opinion the cross-examination of McCarthy “unexplained by any further evidence as to the particular circumstances which then existed, substantially eroded his opinion” .

However, Rolfe J, having referred to Cowin ’s evidence, said: “Notwithstanding the view to which I have come about the evidence of McCarthy, the evidence of Cowin has to be considered. In my view, Cowin , for the reasons I have sought to explain, was in a far better position to assess the ability of HJPL to expand and, not only was he dealing with third party franchisees but also with expansion through company-owned restaurants. He had a vastly superior knowledge and understanding of the business, both as a whole and generally, to McCarthy and, it seems to me, that his evidence is highly persuasive. It becomes the more so as it was not challenged.”

BKC contended that HJPL would not have been in the position to fund expansion of 17 restaurants per year in the period from August 1995. Mr Bathurst conceded that it was common ground that in mid-1995 Competitive Foods was suffering a decline in profitability, which had given rise to concern on the part of its lenders. He noted that Cowin acknowledged that Competitive Foods was then having problems with its banks as a result of a price war within the industry. This led HJPL to make a strategic decision to increase advertising expenditure, resulting in a reduction in its profitability. Mr Bathurst referred to Cowin’s acknowledgment that its Victorian business was not making money at that time. Cowin’s evidence was that while the profitability of HJPL had declined in mid-1995, its cash flow was almost the same as it had been in previous years. Competitive Foods then had a borrowing capacity of approximately $100 million from the banks against $150 million of assets and had borrowed $50 - 51 million at the peak. HJPL could have readily gone into the marketplace and sold another $50 million of real estate against which Competitive Foods would have paid a portion of debt back to the bank.

Both Cowin and Butler denied that HJPL would have ceased expansion. They stated that, having regard to the financial provisions in place, HJPL would have funded the expansion at the rate of 17 restaurants per year. Cowin was willing and able to fund the expansion. An internal memorandum from National Australia Bank of 29 June 1995 recorded Cowin’s strong commitment to the Competitive Foods group and his advice that he would be prepared to sell his large holding in the ownership of Channel 10 to fund capital expenditure by the Competitive Foods group from 1996, had that been necessary. This evidence of Cowin was not challenged in cross-examination.

Rolfe J said at paras 582 and 583 of his judgment: “It seems to me that it is also necessary to have regard to what has occurred since 1995-1996. Admittedly, because of the restrictions placed on it by BKC, HJPL has not been able to open new restaurants or obtain further third party franchisees, with some very limited exceptions. However, there was no suggestion that in that period HJPL has continued to suffer any financial embarrassment or difficulty, and the simple facts are that there is the unchallenged evidence of Cowin as to his estimate of the rate at which restaurants would have been opened, and as to how they would have been financed if HJPL had been unable to do so, which was unchallenged. The claim HJPL has made is a lost opportunity claim, namely that it has been wrongly delayed in opening 17 company-owned restaurants per year from September 1995, and that it has not had approval for 17 third party franchisee operated restaurants per year. The claim, as submitted by Mr Bathurst, is formulated on the basis that HJPL would have opened new restaurants progressively after 31 December 1996 [sic 1999] to ‘make up’ for the lost restaurants and, in calculating its loss, it has assumed that the ‘lost’ and ‘make up’ restaurants would have had a 20 year franchise term.”

In estimating the value of the loss of opportunity, Gower said in his report of 29 March 1999 that he had analysed the historical performance of company owned restaurants to determine average restaurant performance in each State for the period 1 July 1995 to 31 December 1998. He did this on three bases: “1. ‘all stores’, being the average of all restaurants; 2. ‘Sample 1’, described as a sample of restaurants which he was instructed included new or refurbished restaurants located in suburban areas with ‘drive-thru’, external seating, playgrounds and smaller indoor seating; and 3. ‘Sample 2’, which consisted of thirty-three restaurants opened by HJPL between December 1992 and May 1996.” Rolfe J, after referring to this choice of samples, said “[i]t seems to me that ‘Sample 1’ is the appropriate one to use, as reflecting the type of stores Cowin said would be opened” .

Gower said that the application of a discount rate was necessary in order to derive the present value at 31 December 1999 of lost profits that occur either prior to or subsequent to that date having had regard to the risk free rate of 3.5%, the rate of return historically achieved and industry returns. In Gower’s opinion the appropriate rate of return to apply in deriving the net present value of HJPL’s lost profits was 9%. He applied the same discount rate when making the cash flow analysis.

In his report of 1 June 1999 (in some places dated 31 May 1999), Bryant expressed the view that a 16.5% discount rate should be applied and a risk free rate of 9%. In oral evidence, Bryant said that a discount rate of not less than 17.5% should be applied as reflecting the return of an “average restaurant” operated by HJPL in the future. Rolfe J referred to various criticisms made of the rate preferred by Bryant and said that the 9% rate preferred by Gower was not subjected to the same criticism as Bryant’s preferred discount rates. His Honour accepted a discount rate of 9% for deriving the present value of HJPL’s lost profits.

Gower’s assessment of the loss of business opportunity, which Rolfe J ultimately accepted, assumed a 40 year franchise. Rolfe J said that “HJPL submitted that the period should be for 40 years to accord with BKC’s practice, rather than 20 years” . It relied on Fitzjohn’s evidence that “in most cases” franchise agreements would be renewed at the expiry of the first 20 years and on HJPL’s history in the business. His Honour said: “I am of the view that the 40 year period should be adopted, but that a higher percentage for contingencies should be applied because of the longer period during which might occur [sic].” BKC’s Grounds of Appeal

The grounds of appeal against the award of damages under this first head can conveniently be divided into six sections: (i) Grounds 189-192 of the further amended notice of appeal that the trial judge erred by incorporating, as one element of the assessment of damages, 17 as the number of restaurants that HJPL would have developed and opened in the relevant years. (ii) Grounds 193-196 that the trial judge erred in finding that the financial results of HJPL restaurants incorporated in Sample 1 were appropriate for use in connection with the assessment of damages. (iii) Grounds 197-198 that the trial judge erroneously adopted 40 years as the term of each of the franchise agreements which would have been entered into in respect of the HJPL restaurants opened in the relevant years. (iv) Ground 199 that the trial judge erred in adopting calculations of the amount of this head of damages which calculations, inconsistently with his Honour’s findings, did not calculate such damages as at the date of breach by discounting projected losses by the appropriate discount rate. (v) Grounds 200-201 that the trial judge erred in adopting a discount rate of 9%, and ought to have adopted as the appropriate discount rate 16.5% or alternatively, 17.5% or alternatively, 15%; and (vi) Grounds 202-203 that the trial judge erred in adopting 55% as an appropriate rate of discount in respect of contingencies and vicissitudes either because a flat rate was inappropriate or the rate chosen was for various reasons too low.

Ground 1 of HJPL’s amended notice of cross-appeal, that the 55% discount for contingencies and vicissitudes in quantifying damages for HJPL’s loss of opportunity to earn profits from opening and operating Hungry Jack’s restaurants in the period from August 1995 was too high, was not pressed. BKC’s Submissions on the First Head of Damage

BKC submitted that Rolfe J erred in adopting the following five propositions or assumptions in assessing damages for the loss of opportunity to open company owned restaurants. The propositions and assumptions were: (i) that HJPL would have opened 17 new restaurants in each of the relevant years; (ii) that each of the new restaurants which HJPL opened would have produced operating results equal to the average of results achieved by the restaurants comprised in Sample 1; (iii) that each of the new restaurants which HJPL opened would have had a 20 year franchise agreement which would have been renewed to give a franchise period of 40 years; (iv) that HJPL’s losses were calculated from the date of breach and should be subject to a discount rate of 9%; (v) that the damages should be discounted by 55% for contingencies and vicissitudes. Proposition (v) was discussed during the argument about propositions (i), (ii) and (iii). It is not separately dealt with in these reasons for judgment. BKC’s counsel acknowledged that at trial BKC had not put some at least of the submissions challenging propositions (i), (ii) and (iii) and had failed in significant respects to cross-examine HJPL’s witnesses on relevant matters.

Mr Hutley SC, who argued the appeal on damages for HJPL, gathered BKC’s arguments on damages for the loss of opportunity to open restaurants under six heads. First was the submission that Rolfe J erred in not determining the number of restaurants not opened for each of the years between 1995 and the end of 1999. The second was that Rolfe J in calculating the damages disregarded the non-linear nature of the calculation. The third was that Rolfe J had been invited to make a factual determination after which the parties would go away and re-calculate damages based on that finding. The fourth was that this Court should itself re-calculate the damages under this head. The fifth was that Rolfe J was wrong to accept Cowin’s evidence that 17 restaurants would be opened in each of the years in question because it was known that no more than five would have been opened in the year 1995/1996. The sixth was that the best HJPL could have done was to open five restaurants in 1995/1996, nine in 1996/1997 and ten in 1997/1998. HJPL submitted that each of these propositions was wrong and that only one, namely the error in relying on Cowin’s evidence, was put to the trial judge. Accordingly, the other five propositions could not be run on the appeal: Suttor v Gundowda Pty Limited (1950) 81 CLR 418 at 438; Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 at 7-8; Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 at 498. In University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 the High Court said at 483: “It is elementary that a party is bound by the conduct of his case. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, it would be contrary to all principle to allow a party, after a case had been decided against him, to raise a new argument which, whether deliberately or by inadvertence, he failed to put during the hearing when he had an opportunity to do so.” BKC’s Proposition (i)

Mr Finch SC, who put the damages argument on behalf of BKC, submitted that it was known that in the first year of loss to 30 June 1996 17 restaurants would not have been opened. It was known that no more than five restaurants could have been opened by HJPL even if there had been no freeze and no operational and financial disapprovals. Moreover, BKC’s actions were not directed against the opening of restaurants already approved. What BKC did was to refuse to approve or to disapprove sites during 1995, particularly the latter part of 1995. This did not and could not affect the opening of restaurants which had already been approved. By September 1995 a substantial number of restaurant sites had been approved. The opening of these sites was not prevented or affected by BKC’s actions.

According to the evidence of McCarthy (witness statement 28 January 1998, para 90), the procedures after presentation of a site to him started with assessing the impact that a restaurant on that site would have on any nearby HJPL restaurant. The procedure then progressed through to the point of internal board approval. The lead time was between 12 and 18 months.

Cowin said that there was no normal time frame. He accepted 18 months as an average. Power said that in his experience, once a potential site for the operation of a restaurant had been identified, the process of conducting a study of the site, assessing the suitability of the site, securing the site, obtaining necessary approvals, building or refurbishing a restaurant upon the site and making preparations to open the site for business took approximately 18 months to two years depending upon its particular idiosyncrasies. Less time was required to open an in-line restaurant (12 to 15 months) and a food court/shopping mall restaurant (approximately eight to ten months). However, in response to a question from Beazley JA that it could be as quick as six to eight weeks, Mr Finch said “It varied a lot. I will take your Honour to the relevant evidence. It appears that a target was thirty-four weeks” . This was a reference to a time line for a standard restaurant taking account of development approval: see Mazzone’s memorandum of 24 March 1995 to Power.

Mr Finch submitted that given the evidence and regardless of any action by BKC, HJPL could not possibly have opened 17 restaurants in the year ending 30 June 1996. One would not expect to see any effect from the freeze in September/November 1995 during the following 12 months because of the time it took to open a restaurant. Whatever number of restaurants was achieved during this period, it would also have been the maximum achieved without the freeze or disapprovals. However, counsel acknowledged that BKC’s failure to cross-examine Cowin about his statement that 17 restaurants per year would have been opened during the five year period made it difficult for BKC to put the submission.

BKC’s submissions compared HJPL’s past performance and stressed the optimism of McCarthy’s past projections. As at 30 June 1993, HJPL had 122 restaurants. There were six third party franchise restaurants. The profit for that year was $656,000 for the whole of HJPL’s operations. In the development plan prepared in June 1993 McCarthy predicted that in the next year 1993/1994, HJPL would open 22 restaurants and that third parties introduced by it to BKC would open 12. Between August 1993 and July 1994, according to McCarthy’s National Development Report dated 5 August 1994, ten company owned restaurants and five franchisee restaurants were completed. Four new restaurants were under construction and building permits had been issued in respect of six sites.

In the following year ended 30 June 1995 17 company restaurants were opened and five franchisee restaurants. This contrasted with the prediction made on 30 May 1994 (in the memorandum from McCarthy to Miolla) that there would be 30 company owned and 15 franchise restaurants opened. HJPL’s profit for this period was $39,000. It was submitted that there was no chance that a lack of approval in May 1995 influenced or restrained the non-opening of a site. BKC relied on McCarthy’s prediction in the development plan of 30 May 1994, for nine restaurants in each of the years ended 30 June 1997 and 1998, and ten restaurants in the year ended 30 June 1999. A conformable figure should have been estimated for the remaining six months.

The National Development Report for 1994/1995 showed the position as at August 1995. One company and one franchisee restaurant were under construction. Four company restaurants and one franchisee restaurant at Parramatta were under active consideration and presumably not yet started. BKC submitted that one could say as a matter of absolute certainty that in August at the start of the first year of loss there was only one company owned restaurant under construction. Even if all the restaurants under consideration were built and did not take more than 12 months, only five would have been built. In fact only two were actually opened in the 1995/1996 financial year. Cowin ’s evidence was contrary to the known facts. The objective facts meant that the failure to cross-examine Cowin became “not terribly important” .

In his submissions in reply Mr Finch took the Court to some parts of the cross-examination of Cowin, notably cross-examination about reports by McCarthy on current information about planned store openings. In broad terms, Cowin did not concede that these reports were inconsistent with his “damages” case. On objection by Mr Bathurst, Mr Finch reiterated a concession made by him in the following terms: “It is quite clear and is also a central problem that the evidence upon which his Honour based his decision [about the 17 restaurants] was not cross-examined upon as to the crucial position.” Mr Finch expanded that by saying: “Our concession is based upon exactly what Rolfe J based his decision on. That is, we did not cross-examine Cowin about his statement that 17 would have been opened and none of this material amounts to that particular matter.” (as transcribed)

This being so, cross-examination designed to elicit from Cowin his views about the accuracy or otherwise of reports made by others does not detract from the significance and consequence of the failure to cross-examine Cowin about his evidence that at least 17 company owned restaurants per year would have been opened in the relevant period or undermine Rolfe J’s reasons for accepting that evidence.

Mr Finch submitted it was not clear what contingencies the 55% covered but, in any event, it could not be used to correct errors in interpreting the evidence about the number of restaurants that would have been opened. Rolfe J was said to have erred in concluding that the development would have proceeded over each of the five years at the rate of 17 restaurants per year and in then seeking to correct or compensate for the inaccuracy of this figure by a discount for contingencies, first, because it was known that a maximum of five restaurants only would be opened in the first year and secondly, because, according to Bryant, the number of restaurants operating at any time was not linearly related to HJPL’s cash flow. Put another way, it did not follow that if the value of the loss of the opportunity to open 17 restaurants in each of the four and a half years was $X, the value of the loss of the opportunity to open fewer restaurants in each of these years, say only ten, could be treated as proportional. The proper assessment of the loss of the opportunity to open ten restaurants per year could not be done by such an extrapolation. Mr Finch conceded that Rolfe J was not given any help by BKC’s counsel on this point.

BKC submitted that Rolfe J should have looked at each of the years ended 30 June 1996 to 30 June 1999 and the six months to 31 December 1999 and estimated how many company owned restaurants would have been opened in that year. Gower gave evidence that the dollar amounts were not unduly sensitive to change in the number of restaurants. However, Mr Finch submitted that it was reasonably possible to do a Malec exercise on each variable and that the trial judge should have grappled with the loss of opportunity to open a particular number of restaurants in the first year and in each year thereafter and decided in each of these years how many restaurants HJPL would have opened but for BKC’s actions.

BKC submitted that there was an appealable error when it was shown that at least one of the assumed possibilities could not happen, that is to say the number of restaurants to be opened in the year ended 30 June 1996. Furthermore, since there was no linear connection between the number of restaurants not opened and the amount of damages if all HJPL lost was the opportunity to open five restaurants or, alternatively, fewer than 17, the damages could not be calculated on the material available. That was the heart of the argument on this part of the appeal.

BKC also submitted that the damages awarded by Rolfe J were excessive when measured against the years in question assuming that each one had returned the highest profit that HJPL had ever earned from the Hungry Jack’s restaurants. This was described as a reality check. Mr Finch submitted that $38 million even after the 55% reduction for contingencies represented more than thirty years of the highest ever annual profit made in the years leading up to the freeze. It represented just over 60 years at the average rate of profit HJPL had earned annually during this period. As damages for a claim for delay in earning profits for five years, the amount was on its face excessive. This demonstrated the need to address how many restaurants would have been opened when calibrating the model. The damages awarded were wholly out of proportion to the loss. BKC’s Proposition (ii)

BKC submitted that Rolfe J erred in using the Sample 1 restaurants to assess damages. In calculating the average earnings figure for the lost period of five years, Gower put three alternatives. HJPL instructed him to adopt Sample 1 which, as Rolfe J said, was comprised of new or refurbished restaurants, located in suburban areas with drive-thrus, external seating, playgrounds and indoor seating. There were 12 in Western Australia, eight in South Australia, 11 in Victoria, six in New South Wales/ACT and nine in Queensland. The modifications or enhancements of these restaurants maximised their profitability. BKC submitted that this was an unrepresentative sample. BKC instructed Bryant to adopt the “all restaurants” sample.

BKC criticised the statements in para 634 of the judgment where his Honour said that Cowin gave evidence supporting the calculation based on Sample 1 “upon which he was not cross-examined” and said “it seems to me that ‘Sample 1’ is the appropriate one to use, as reflecting the type of stores Cowin said would be opened” . Rolfe J did not engage in any analysis of the relative merits of each of the sample types, but simply accepted what he recorded as Cowin’s evidence. His findings in para 634 mirrored HJPL’s argument. Cowin gave no evidence about the calculation or about Sample 1 either in his witness statements or orally. His evidence was about the type of restaurants built in the past. He made no prediction for the future. Moreover, it was submitted that restaurants that began as new restaurants would, over the period of 40 years, age.

Cowin annexed a list of restaurants owned by HJPL between December 1992 and May 1996. It happened that that list was the same as Sample 2 in Gower’s expert report. Cowin said that of the sample of 33, 22 were Sample 1 restaurants and 11 were not. He then identified 18 restaurants which, during the period since December 1992, HJPL had refurbished to improve the drive-thru capability and the external and playground areas. Nowhere did Cowin say that HJPL would have opened any particular category of restaurant by way of preference after May 1996. Indeed, it appeared that HJPL was still opening suburban restaurants with drive-thrus, inner city restaurants and shopping centre restaurants. BKC submitted that what was known was that thirty-three restaurants had been opened between December 1992 and May 1996 of which 22 were in Sample 1. During the period after December 1992 until March 1999, 18 restaurants were refurbished to improve the drive-thru capability and their external seating and playground areas. All of these were included in Sample 1. There was no evidence about when the other six restaurants in Sample 1 were built or renovated. The point was that of the 33 restaurants built, 11 were not Sample 1. Gower’s Sample 2 consisted of the 33 restaurants opened by HJPL between December 1992 and May 1996 of which Cowin gave evidence. The reason why Cowin was not cross-examined on this was that his evidence about what had happened in the past was uncontroversial.

BKC submitted that there was no foundation for Rolfe J’s conclusion in the last sentence in para 634 of the judgment that Sample 1 restaurants reflected “the type of stores Cowin said would be opened” . The inference would be that HJPL would continue to open all the different styles of restaurants it was accustomed to do. Mr Finch acknowledged that Rolfe J was not given “the sort of assistance one might have expected because we made no submissions about this other than to maintain our assertion that ‘all stores’ was appropriate rather than Sample 1” . Rolfe J adopted the language of HJPL’s written submissions and described Sample 2 as a larger sample than Sample 1. In fact, Sample 1 consisted of 46 restaurants, Sample 2 of 33 restaurants. BKC said that the sample should be tested by reference to the “all restaurants” sample. Mr Finch added: “Now, again, no argument by us was addressed to that effect, it is simply a matter as tendered to his Honour on the decision of the facts and his Honour simply got the facts wrong.” BKC’s Proposition (iii)

Next, BKC submitted that Rolfe J erred in using 40 years rather than 20 years to calculate the term of each of the agreements which would have been entered into for the HJPL restaurants. This was part of determining the income stream and the present value of that income stream. Mr Finch fairly acknowledged that this was a difficult area for BKC. It was submitted that the conclusion was wrong but conceded that Rolfe J’s task was made harder “by us not giving him a hint about this” . In this regard, Rolfe J had said: “HJPL submitted that the period should be for 40 years to accord with BKC’s practice, rather than 20 years. It placed reliance on Fitzjohn’s evidence that ‘in most cases’ franchisee agreements would be renewed at the expiry of the first 20 years: Tp. 2202, and on HJPL’s history in the business. I am of the view that the 40 year period should be adopted, but that a higher percentage for contingencies should be applied because of the longer period during which might occur (sic).”

BKC argued, and Rolfe J found, that from December 1993 it had an agenda and a deliberate strategy to claim back the Australian market from HJPL. Accordingly the corporate intent was that BKC was on an agenda to win back the Australian market. The franchise agreements were non-exclusive. Until 1986 the term of the agreement was 15 years and HJPL had a right of renewal for a further term of 15 years. After 1986 the term was for 20 years without a right of renewal. Mr Finch asked rhetorically: why conclude that when such agreements came up for renewal some time in early 2000, BKC would deliberately flaunt its own wish to compete, by extending the life of the franchises of its competitor when it didn’t have to do so? The problem was there to be resolved by the trial judge. Moreover there was no history of renewal of the 20 year franchise between BKC and HJPL. By 1999 no 20 year agreement had expired.

Rolfe J may have included in the allowance for vicissitudes the possibility that the discount rate of 9% was wrong and that the 40 year period was wrong, though in that regard his Honour said that a higher percentage for contingencies should be applied because of the longer period “during which might occur (sic)” , meaning a longer time during which contingencies or vicissitudes might happen. Rolfe J did not say that he had increased the contingency discount because of the possibility that the period might be 20 years rather than 40 years.

In the course of cross-examination Fitzjohn gave the following evidence: “Q. The standard international franchise agreement of the Burger King Corporation is a 20 year agreement? A. That’s correct, your Honour. Q. And how long had it been, to your knowledge, a 20 year agreement? A. I couldn’t honestly say, but it certainly was a 20 year agreement when I joined the company in 1989. Q. The standard international agreement had no right of renewal at the expiry of its term, did it? A. I couldn’t say. Q. You don’t know? A. I can’t say whether it did or didn’t. Q. In your experience, though, it was the fact, was it not, that often at the expiry of a 20 year franchise agreement there would be a renewal of a franchise agreement; correct? A Yes, in most cases that would be so.”

Mr Finch made the following points. First, the answer could not be right. The only way it made sense was if the witness had understood the question to be about the 15 year franchise agreements. The question was introduced by reference to the standard international agreement. The experience that he had had in the past could only be of the old agreement. Mr Finch conceded that there was no re-examination on the point. It was submitted that Rolfe J could not safely rely on this evidence to reach his conclusion, particularly having regard to the change of corporate agenda and in change in the terms of the leases. BKC’s Proposition (iv)

Generally damages for torts or breach of contract are assessed as at the date of breach or when the cause of action arises, though the rule is not universal and must give way in a particular case to solutions best adapted to give the injured plaintiff that amount in damages which most fairly compensates the plaintiff for the injury: see Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351 at 355-6, 367. Dawson J said at 388: “But there is another reason why it is desirable, upon other than pragmatic grounds, to assess damages as at the date of trial rather than the date of the wrong in cases such as personal injury cases. It is because the compensation in those cases is for future as well as past loss and damage and, for the purpose of assessing amounts there is no compelling reason to select one point rather than another along the continuum over which the damages extend. The loss does not crystallise until the assessment is made. It is only then that the right of the plaintiff can be said to be quantified. In other cases the loss crystallises irrespective of whether any assessment is made. For example, where there is a failure to deliver goods sold and there is an opportunity to replace the goods in the market, the loss crystallises at that time and there is every reason why it should be assessed at that time, particularly if any delay between the cause of action arising and judgment can be met by an award of interest.”

In the present case the claim was structured as one of delay for a period ending on the date when it was assumed judgment would be given and BKC would again comply with the contractual requirements. On that date the loss crystallised and there seems to us no particular reason why damages should be assessed at some earlier date. The breach was assumed to be one which continued at least to the end of 1999. Gower was asked to calculate the damages as at the assumed date of judgment. HJPL claimed no further interest component and the final orders made no allowance for interest before judgment. If Rolfe J mistakenly believed, when he said that damages were payable prima facie “from the date of breach” and interest would have to be calculated, that Gower had calculated the damages for the delay in opening restaurants as at some such earlier date, that mistaken belief had no consequence because no interest for any period before judgment was sought or awarded. We do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter further.

BKC’s submissions under this head were directed to the discount rate. The competition was essentially between 16.5% according to BKC and 9% according to HJPL.

Having pointed out that the application of a discount rate was necessary in order to derive the present value at 31 December 1999 of profits lost either before or after that date, Gower said: “28.1 In deriving an appropriate discount rate, the expected rates of return on equity by HJPL are considered by me to properly reflect the loss or gain caused by timing differences. I come to this opinion as this represents the rate of return which HJPL is expected to earn on funds which would have been derived but for the lost profits. 28.2 In determining a discount rate appropriate to the rate of return expected on HJPL equity I have had regard to the following: - The risk free rate : Ten year government bond rates are currently quoted at approximately 5.40%. This represents an after tax rate of approximately 3.5% to the corporate investor. For the purpose of this report, 3.5% is considered to be the risk free rate appropriate to the period under consideration. - The rate of return historically achieved by HJPL: The after tax rates of return on equity achieved by HJPL over the five year period to 30 June 1998 are. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 Net profit (loss) 1,100 39 (607) 1,022 4,828 Shareholders’ equity 16,453 16,492 15,886 8,907 11,541 Rate of return 6.7% 0.2% (3.8%) 11.5% 27.5% - Industry returns: I have considered the rates of return which are generally required by equity investors in the marketplace. This rate of return represents the rate of return generally required in the market. The following rates of return are evident in respect of publicly quoted companies: June 1996 1997 1998 All ordinaries average 7.5% 6.4% 5.9% 28.3 Having considered the above factors, in my opinion, the appropriate rate of return to apply in deriving the net present value of HJPL’s lost profits is 9%.”

BKC submitted the discount rate was wrongly calculated because it had no “future elements” and referred to rates of return historically achieved. Moreover the rate of return was that derived from looking at the performance of all the restaurants. It did not pull out the Sample 1 type restaurants and see how they were travelling as a separate group. A Sample 1 prediction required a Sample 1 discount rate. In his reasons for judgment Rolfe J missed this point. Furthermore, the industry returns were “all ordinaries” when “all industrials” were meant. The essential error was that Gower looked to the past. What had happened bore no relationship to what Gower was postulating would happen. Bryant used a risk free rate of 9% and expressed the view that a 16.5% discount rate should be applied in reliance on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Gower did not consider that the application of the CAPM was appropriate.

His Honour observed that Bryant’s evidence as to the use of the CAPM methodology was not entirely convincing. He said (at 628): “… it appeared that but for his application of a 25% increment because HJPL was unlisted, he and Gower would have had little difference as to the appropriate discount rate to be applied using the CAPM methodology. Bryant also gave some evidence as to the risk free rate, which was subsequently and very properly in all the circumstances, retracted to some extent by Mr Oslington on 23 August 1999 (para 36.40). In all the circumstances I find that I am unable to adopt Bryant’s approach to the discount rate based on the CAPM method. Subsequently, Bryant expressed the view that a discount rate of not less than 17.5% should be applied as reflecting the return of an ‘average restaurant’ operated by HJPL in the future. He agreed that he had calculated this on a company owned restaurant opened on 1 January 2000 and, to that extent, he had departed from the assumption that damages were to be measured from August 1995, and he had not sought to determine the return upon HJPL’s existing business projected from August 1995 forward. He was unable to state whether the discount rate would have been higher or lower if calculated as at August 1995. I have some further difficulties with Bryant’s evidence in relation to this matter, which are referred to in paras 36.42 et seq. Gower preferred a discount rate of 9%. This rate was not subjected to the same criticism as Bryant’s preferred discount rate. It is, in my opinion, the one which should be accepted.”

BKC again referred to the reality check and said if one looked at the result of applying Gower’s figures the results were startling. For example, the total loss as shown in Gower’s original table reduced from over $96 million for Sample 1 at the 9% discount rate to just under $56 million at the 17.5% discount rate. It was submitted that this indicated that the assumptions were wrong. HJPL’s Submissions

According to HJPL, so far as the number of restaurants which would have been opened was concerned, BKC’s submission at trial was a crash or crash through proposition, namely that unless Rolfe J accepted that 17 restaurants would have been opened in each of the years in question, this head of the claim for damages must fail.

Mr Hutley pointed out that this part of the argument was in the context that the franchise fees which applied to company owned restaurants under the Development Agreement applied only in respect of those acquired before the Development Agreement came to an end in 2010. Similarly, HJPL had only until 2010 to obtain third party franchises. The same applied to the rights and obligations under the Service Agreement. The second point of context was that the market was regarded as unlimited. The potential number of new restaurant sites which could, theoretically, be opened, would not be exhausted by what HJPL projected. This was demonstrated by the number of restaurants that McDonalds, the principal competitor, had opened compared to the number that HJPL had opened.

The starting point of the calculation of damages was Gower’s first report dated 29 March 1999. Gower proceeded on certain assumptions, one of which was the instruction that, but for the withholding of approval, HJPL would have opened new company owned restaurants at a rate of 17 per year. In order to quantify HJPL’s loss arising from its inability to open new restaurants it was necessary to determine the profit that would have been made from those lost restaurants. For the purpose of quantifying the loss of profits, Gower was instructed to assume that HJPL would, if successful in the proceedings, re-commence opening new restaurants from 1 January 2000 and progressively recoup the lost restaurants until the deficiency in number of restaurants was recovered during the year ended 30 June 2013.

The recoupment assumption was a consequence of Cowin’s evidence as to what HJPL would do to mitigate its loss. Gower had to work out the varying cash flows on the basis that there would be no interference with the right to develop, based on the 17 restaurant assumption, and then had to work out the cash flows on the basis that recoupment would be feasible from 1 January 2000. In order to do that, he had to work out or make assumptions about the likely character of the restaurants which would be built. That led to the sample assumption.

Since the performance of the various restaurants in various States differed, for each of his models Gower worked out the average restaurant performance for restaurants in a particular State. He then projected forward the performance of each average restaurant in each State, first to 2013 and then to the expiry of a 20 year franchise agreement or alternatively a 40 year term consisting of two franchise agreements, which assumed a renewal of each of the franchise agreements the subject of the model. That had the result that the last projection went out to 2053, being 40 years after 2013 when it was assumed the last recouped restaurant would be opened. Various complex adjustments had to be made to both income and expenditure and to take account of taxation. The result was the production of two notional cash flows, one on a 17 restaurant per year no disapproval basis and the second on the recoupment basis. For each year Gower determined the net operating cash flow for each restaurant. Originally he had done this on the basis of the profit of each restaurant. Bryant disputed this approach preferring the use of an operating cash flow. Gower then modelled for both.

Having produced cash flows, Gower then discounted each cash flow back to its current value. This enabled the current value of the cash flow on the assumption that 17 restaurants were opened each year during the period in question without BKC’s interference to be compared with the current value of the cash flow as a result of BKC’s interference and HJPL’s recoupment programme.

Mr Hutley noted that some of the variables such as the discount rate and appropriate sample were in dispute. But those particular matters aside there was no relevant dispute between the parties about the integers of the cash flow. None of the items of income, expenditure and growth assumptions which were built into the cash flows was in dispute. Some of those integers varied from State to State. There were also several cost matters which varied with the number of restaurants to be built. If a change was made in the number of restaurants, it was necessary first to go through a process of the allocation of that change into a particular State and see what the impact of that allocation was upon the expenses for that State. Mr Hutley said that BKC’s submission, which was not made to the trial judge, that his Honour without being asked, ought to have undertaken a detailed analysis and determination on a year by year basis up to 1999 was fanciful. Rolfe J was not in a position to do this calculation and no one asked him to do it.

Mr Hutley raised for consideration the question why at trial BKC’s counsel did not attack Cowin’s evidence that 17 new restaurants would be opened in each of the years 1996 to December 1999 and why counsel did not submit to Rolfe J that because BKC had decided to go to war with HJPL, there was no basis for the assumption that renewals after 20 years would take place. These were both submissions put to this Court. Why did counsel not ask Rolfe J to assess each of the years from 1995/1996 to December 1999 individually?

Mr Hutley submitted there were two obvious answers. The first was that counsel had formed the opinion that such an attack was unlikely to succeed and took a calculated gamble. The second was that such an attack raised the risk of exposing BKC to an astronomical claim in damages. The assumption that HJPL would be able to recoup the lost restaurants was extremely favourable to BKC. HJPL’s claim was for loss suffered from the delay in opening restaurants. It proceeded on the basis that everyone would act in good faith and that HJPL would move as quickly as it could to mitigate its damages and lift its performance to recoup restaurants. In the first few years it would move from opening 17 to 20 restaurants. From about 2003 it would seek to recoup at about eight restaurants per year in addition to the 17 until the deficiency was finally recovered during the year ended 30 June 2013.

Critical to this programme was the assumption that it would be permitted by BKC to do so. Of course from 2010 it had no right to recoup because the Development Agreement would come to an end. If by contrast, counsel at the trial had put the argument that because BKC and HJPL were at war this recoupment would not be allowed and the franchises would not be extended to 40 years, because BKC wanted to take the market back, the consequence would have been to have converted the damages claim from one for delay to one for an absolute loss of 24 restaurants, that is, those restaurants it was assumed would be recouped after the expiry of the Development Agreement in 2010. Using the 9% discount and assuming the restaurants would be Sample 1 a rough calculation suggested that the damages for such an absolute loss would be over $170 million. Further, it did not necessarily follow from an assumption of total war, that with respect to existing restaurants, recouped before 2010, that there would not be, in addition, damages based on a 40 year discounted cash flow difference if his Honour had been persuaded that existing restaurants franchises were likely to be renewed.

Moreover, the damages calculation was based on the capacity of HJPL to recoup. Had his Honour been persuaded that HJPL was not able to expand at 17 restaurants per year but only at 11 the capacity to recoup in the year 2000 and following would be in doubt or lessened. Thus, if the loss were measured at only 11 company owned restaurants per year, that is to say 48 by the end of 1999 and there was no capacity to recoup, the loss could have been treated as an absolute one giving rise to an astronomical increase in the damages recoverable. Understandably, therefore, BKC made no attack on the recoupment schedule. BKC’s submission about the number of restaurants was that it was 17 or nothing. No submissions were made to suggest that it could have been some lesser number of restaurants lost. This was a calculated and clever approach not pursued in this Court.

As to the argument about elements of non-linearity, Mr Hutley submitted that most loss of profits cases dealing with future business profits involved elements of this. Strictly to take account of it, it would be necessary for the Court to divine events as far away as 2013.

Rolfe J noted BKC’s submission that there was no evidence to support any method of calculating damages in the absence of a finding that 17 restaurants would have been opened. In its submissions, to which his Honour adverted, HJPL referred to Gower’s report of 28 June 1999. Gower observed that if HJPL was required to reduce its restaurant opening program due to resources constraints in the period from August 1995, it was likely that it would do so by excluding new restaurants from those States which were known to be less profitable. The report showed that, if the number of restaurants opened by HJPL after 1995 was 11 restaurants per annum rather than 17 restaurants per annum (a reduction of 35% in the number of restaurants opened), and that reduction was implemented by eliminating restaurant openings in South Australia and Victoria, HJPL’s loss relating to company owned restaurants would be reduced by a smaller percentage, 22.5%.

Gower also noted that any reduction in the number of restaurants which HJPL would have opened in the period from 1995 should also be reflected in the number of restaurants which would be opened to recoup HJPL’s loss, and that a reduction in both components of the model would be likely to cause a relatively small decrease, or even an increase, in the quantum of HJPL’s loss. Noting these matters, Rolfe J said that he would adopt a percentage for discounting for contingencies and vicissitudes, which would have regard to the risk that fewer than 17 restaurants per year would have been opened, as best he could assess it, which assessment he made based on the history of HJPL and his estimation of the future as disclosed by the evidence. The consequence of Gower’s evidence about these matters was that his cash flow model, based at it was on a State by State assessment, was relatively insensitive to any change in the number of restaurants opened. While the calculation was not precise, it was a practical way of dealing with the non-linearity of parallel projections. Bryant’s comments about this were made in the context of the national cash flow model that he had prepared and which ultimately was not relied on.

Addressing BKC’s reality checks Mr Hutley submitted that the calculation depended on a comparison between the loss of trading of restaurants replaced by a recoupment which involved a partial delay of up to 13 years, that is to say from 2000 to 2013, and then continued for a period in each case between 2040 and 2053, that is to say for a period of 40 years. The calculation explains the amount of the loss. A comparison with profits experience is no indicator of the accuracy of the calculation.

Moreover the profile of HJPL’s company restaurant business was changing. A significant shift in the form of restaurants being opened and upgraded was taking place. Sample 1 restaurants were turning out to be much more profitable. Old restaurants which had not been upgraded represented a significant drag on HJPL’s profitability. Referring to the sentence in para 634 of the judgment where Rolfe J said “It seems to me that Sample 1 is the appropriate one to use, as reflecting the type of stores Cowin said would be opened” , Mr Hutley agreed that Cowin never said that the only restaurants that would be opened would be of the Sample 1 type. Nor was such a submission put to his Honour.

Cowin’s annexed list of 33 restaurants opened between December 1992 and May 1996, already referred to, consisted of four situated in Western Australia, five in South Australia, eight in New South Wales, three in the ACT, eight in Victoria and five in Queensland. Of the 33, 22 were identified as Sample 1 having been constructed on suburban or expressway sites, rather than rural or inner city sites. Cowin said that although each of these restaurants was different, the majority of them included smaller indoor eating areas, to reduce building area and construction costs, extended outdoor eating areas and enhanced playgrounds, and the design of the “drive-thru” to maximise the restaurant’s capacity. Two of the other restaurants were located in suburban areas but did not have a drive-thru. The remainder of the 33 were in inner city locations or in shopping centres and were not Sample 1.

Cowin also said that, during the period since December 1992, HJPL had undertaken refurbishments to existing restaurants to improve the “drive-thru” capability of those restaurants and their external seating and playground areas. He identified 18 such restaurants, five in Western Australia, four in South Australia, three in Victoria and six in Queensland. According to Mr Hutley there was a choice to be made about which was the best sample to reflect what was likely to happen with HJPL. No sample could be absolutely accurate. HJPL submitted that the best choice was Sample 1. BKC made no submission to the contrary to his Honour. Rolfe J made a judgment and when he came to discount for vicissitudes had regard, so it was said, to the inaccuracy of the sample. What Rolfe J meant to say in the sentence criticised was that Sample 1 was the most appropriate one to use to reflect the restaurants that would be opened.

Mr Hutley next dealt with what he described as “the plank” of BKC’s submission on this head of damages, namely that in the first year up to 30 June 1996 no more than five new restaurants would have been opened. Two reasons were given. First that it took 12 to 18 months to open a restaurant and the Development Schedule as at August 1995 showed one restaurant in construction and up to four in development. That document was not McCarthy’s document but Montgomery’s. McCarthy assisted in its preparation. McCarthy was not the National Development Manager. He had responsibility for third party franchisees and development in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Montgomery had a practice of deliberately not making reports complete because he was concerned about espionage and about reports somehow getting to McDonalds. Mr Hutley submitted that the evidence showed that the time it took to open a restaurant varied enormously. Delay at the relevant time had to be looked at in the context of the TRA dispute.

Rolfe J said that it had been submitted that the 17 restaurant assumption was supported by HJPL’s having opened 16 during 1996, by the prior history of restaurant openings, and by Gower’s evidence that that assumption was not inconsistent with the ten year moving average for HJPL’s restaurant openings as shown in Appendix C4 to Bryant’s report. His Honour continued: “Bryant, who criticised the assumption, acknowledged that such criticism was based on the limited material provided to him by BKC’s solicitors. The submissions then referred to the fact that BKC was looking at the position in the light of the breaches it had committed, rather than having regard to what would have occurred but for them. A telling comparison was drawn from the figures prepared by BKC to demonstrate the extent of HJPL’s expansion and its success in recruiting third party franchisees, prior to BKC’s impugned conduct. On the other hand Mr Oslington pointed to the fact that the history of restaurant openings did not support Cowin’s forecast in relation to company owned restaurants and, more particularly, company owned restaurants combined with those opened by third party franchisees. Whilst this submission was made, it was not based on any cross-examination of Cowin seeking to erode the forecasts or to make it appear unlikely that the forecasts would be met.”

The “telling comparison” , and this was never challenged at trial, showed that there were as many as 11 or 12 potential sites under consideration which were not mentioned in the National Development Report F94/95 prepared in August 1995. These restaurants had been the subject of applications for preliminary agreements in March 1995 and were held up by the TRA process. From March 1995 Cowin had taken over negotiations with BKC in relation to the TRA process. Discussions took place in July. This material was relied on in support of HJPL’s ultimate submission that, in the absence of confronting Cowin with an opportunity to explain why he was of the view he was about the opening of restaurants, and having regard to the other uncertainties associated with the August document, which in McCarthy’s belief was not complete, and Montgomery’s approach to these documents, which were not likely to be complete, BKC’s claim that it was known how many restaurants would have been opened in the year ended 30 June 1996 must fail.

At para 589 of the judgment Rolfe J referred to BKC’s submission that the business plan given to the banks in April 1995 forecast 15 restaurants opening during 1995/1996 at a total cost of $7.07 million, and 12 new restaurants opening in 1996/1997. Mr Hutley remarked that if Cowin was prepared in April to put forward a business plan to bankers for 15 new restaurants, when that was impossible, because, according to BKC’s submissions, 12 to 18 months was needed to open a restaurant and it was only two months away from the beginning of the financial year, it must be doubted whether he was being frank with his bankers. That was never put to him nor was it ever suggested that what was proposed in the business plan was impossible. On the other hand, if by August 1995 it was known that there could never be more than five, what change had occurred between April and August? Cowin was never asked. Moreover, it was submitted, the forecast average or business average is of no assistance unless the witness is offered the chance to comment upon any disparity between that average and his evidence about what will occur.

The departure point for BKC’s submission was the development plan prepared in June 1993. That forecast 16 company owned and 16 franchise restaurants for 1994/1995 and 12 company owned and 19 franchise restaurants for 1995/1996. All this proved was that what they predicted would occur at a particular date did not. HJPL may have had good commercial reasons in June 1993 for not wanting to expand at a greater rate. That did not prove that Cowin’s predictions when he made them in his witness statement were inaccurate. This was not investigated. The next document of 30 May 1994 presented exactly the same problem. That predicted 30 company owned and 15 franchisee restaurants for 1994/1995 and 17 company owned and 20 franchisee restaurants for 1995/1996. The achievement in 1994/1995 was 17 and five. An attempt was made to impugn Cowin’s predictive powers through use of a document not produced by him.

On 21 March 1995 Montgomery sent a memorandum by fax to Power regarding the report of August 1995. Attached was a Development Report dated 14 March 1995. The memorandum read: “Attached is a Development Report for inclusion in papers for meeting in Adelaide 3/4 April. I believe a meeting needs to be set up to cover future sites for 95/96 and into future - and agreement as to TRAs so that all parties know where they are going. The list provided is not comprehensive in the sense of covering all possibilities and is purposely vague on oil companies as I think some sort of confidentiality needs to be maintained. I have a suspicion that McDonalds may have obtained these reports in the past.”

The report covered new restaurants completed and under construction or anticipated completed 1994/1995. There were 22 of which five were to be franchised. The point was made that in Cowin’s evidence, para 12, he said that in 1995/1996 HJPL would also have opened a restaurant in Palmerston, Northern Territory at a site which it had acquired for that purpose. The proposition put by BKC that it was known that only five would be opened involved rejecting as impossible the opening of a restaurant at the Palmerston site.

The submission then came back to the “telling comparison” . At trial BKC, as part of its submission, relied upon five folders marked “First Set - Schedule of Proposed Store Openings” and two folders marked “Second Set - Schedule of Proposed Store Openings” . In its written submissions at trial, HJPL said: “To the extent that those schedules deal with the position after May 1995, in relation to third party franchisee recruitment, and after September 1995 in relation to company owned stores, they are again evidence of the result of BKC’s conduct, rather than of the position which would have existed had that conduct not occurred. The proposition in para 249 of BKC’s submissions of those schedules demonstrate that numerous sites were not mentioned after August 1995, or were given an ‘under investigation’ label where they were the subject of exception approvals, demonstrates not that HJPL had decided to cease development at that time, but that BKC’s conduct had brought its development to the ‘grinding halt’ to which Cowin referred in cross-examination.”

In fact HJPL said the schedules on which BKC relied demonstrated the extent of HJPL’s expansion, and its success in recruiting third party franchisees, before BKC’s conduct in withholding approval for third party franchise recruitment and denying expansion approval for company owned restaurants. HJPL said that the schedules disclosed that before the denial of expansion approval by BKC, HJPL opened restaurants at many of the sites which it investigated. These were referred to in paragraphs numbered (i) to (xvii). Included amongst these were the following: “(ii) HJPL had a site at Belconnen, ACT under investigation in 1993-1994, and opened a restaurant at that site on 15 November 1994. … (iv) HJPL had a restaurant at Browns Plains, Queensland under investigation in 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 4 October 1994. … (vi) HJPL had a site at Carindale, Queensland under investigation in 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 13 September 1994. (vii) HJPL had a site at Darlinghurst, New South Wales under investigation during 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 21 October 1994. (viii) HJPL had a site at Flinders Street Station, Melbourne, Victoria under investigation during 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 27 May 1994. (ix) HJPL had a site at Glenelg, South Australia under investigation in 1993 and opened a restaurant at that site on 18 November 1993. (x) HJPL had a site at Joondalup, Western Australia under investigation in 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 5 November 1994. … (xii) HJPL had a site at Maitland, New South Wales under investigation from early 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 2 December 1994. … (xv) HJPL had a site at Subiaco, Western Australian under consideration in 1994 and opened a restaurant at that site on 22 December 1994.”

HJPL pointed out that a significant number of the restaurants were moving from “under investigation” to opening within a year.

The schedules also indicated that before the withholding of financial and operational approval, HJPL had numerous sites under investigation which it was expected would open in 1995 and 1996. Included amongst these were sites under investigation with estimated opening dates in late 1995 and 1996 at Bondi Beach, Bondi Junction, Chullora, and Newcastle CBD in New South Wales, Caboolture, Gailes, Deception Bay, Kawana and Beenleigh in Queensland, Palmerston near Darwin, Burwood, Deepdene, Doncaster, Sunbury and Flemington in Victoria. There were others. HJPL submitted that if Cowin had been cross-examined about his estimate of 17 restaurants per year during the period in question he might well have supported what he said by a reference to these particular proposals.

Counsel next referred to the TRA and the 30 May 1994 Recruitment Plan. On 17 March 1995 Power sent a memorandum by fax to Mazzone. It related to discussion that had taken place in Melbourne regarding the TRA. Attached were copies of two sets of schedules, the first of the original list of preliminary applications that was approved in March 1994 and the second a list of preliminary agreements submitted with the 31 May 1994 business plan by HJPL for which no approval had issued. The memorandum continued: “As discussed, in technical terms HJ currently does not have any valid preliminary agreements in place (ie they have expired or were never approved). It is now essential for HJ to identify those locations that they wish to ‘reserve’ by signing a TRA and paying the non-refundable US$5,000 deposit for each site. Whereas this deposit would normally be credited against the franchise fee, given that HJ does not pay a franchise fee, we will return the original deposit cheque back to you at date of opening, provided it is within the eighteen months time frame (plus any agreed extensions).” The memorandum went on to refer to an agreement that Mazzone would provide Power in the near future with a copy of the generic time line that would apply for the opening of a restaurant within 18 months of the date of signing of the TRA.

On 23 March 1995 McCarthy sent Power a memorandum in which was set out “preliminary advice regarding target reservation areas which [HJPL] intends to propose as the basis of target reservation agreements for the forthcoming year” . There followed one site in Western Australia, two in South Australia, 12 in Victoria, ten in Queensland, ten in New South Wales, five in Newcastle/Central Coast, three in Canberra and two in the Northern Territory (45 sites in all). Included amongst those were the sites · in Victoria at Sunbury, Doncaster, Deepdene, Burwood and Flemington, · in Queensland, Caboolture, Deception Bay, Beenleigh and Gailes, · in New South Wales, Chullora, Bondi Junction, Bondi Beach, Newcastle CBD; and · in Northern Territory, Palmerston (14 sites in all). Also included in both lists were Kawana and Nerang in Queensland.

The point was that restaurants under consideration were now subject to the need for a TRA. In a memorandum dated 22 March 1995 from Power to Hothorn and Miolla, Power said: “I outlined exactly how the TRA process works and Mazzone indicated that, while under normal circumstances eighteen months would be an acceptable time frame, there will be times when eighteen months is insufficient due to circumstances beyond their control. Fine, I said. Prepare a time line showing those areas where reliance on third parties is a potential cause for an exception request. Define the ‘normal’ time required for those process areas and then when an exception occurs (ie circumstance where the Zee has acted in good faith and on time, but the council or government or other body has caused a delay beyond Zee’s control) produce supporting documentation and we will add the exception delay time on to the end of the eighteen month period. I also indicated that the former preliminary agreements that HJ had in place have now all expired and they will need to address the site reservation issue on a priority basis by signing TRAs for those sites they were willing to commence to opening within eighteen months AND they would have to provide a cheque to me for US$5,000 for every such site. Clearly, Jack has not understood the ramifications of this [unreadable] yet but when he hears that we are requiring him to put down US$100,000 to secure [unreadable] sites going forward well you’ll hear him from London and Miami without the use of a phone.”

On 24 March 1995 Power sent a memorandum to Miolla and Hothorn as follows: “As an indication of the apparent size of the issue we are going to face with Jack, I attach a copy of a fax just received, indicating those sites they wish to reserve, 40-five in all, better known as $225,000 in deposits. There is no way they will open all these restaurants within eighteen months and the message I have to send to them is that this number is unrealistic relative to their demonstrated development ability to date. Is this number of sites in excess of a reasonable request? I know we manage what is a reasonable number of sites to be applied for in the US and I recognise this is a peculiar relationship with HJ. There are clear legal considerations if we attempt to reduce this 40-five site request.” Attached was the memorandum of 23 March 1995.

On 24 March 1995 Mazzone sent Power a memorandum headed “Time line definition as requested” to which was attached Hungry Jack’s store development flow chart. On 26 March 1995 an email went from Hothorn to Power saying in part: “There should be no standard eighteen month TRAs. Each one’s duration must be decided on a case by case basis. I would not even hint at a standard. This should be negotiated on an individual basis. Some will take three months (ie kiosks) and some will take two years (waiting for a mall to be built).” In his witness statement of 29 January 1998 Mazzone said in para 22 that he had advised Power that TRA matters were not within his authority and that he should speak to Cowin or Montgomery.

Cowin in his witness statement of 27 January 1998 gave evidence of a meeting with Blauer and Miolla held on 10 July 1995 at which the issue of entry into TRAs was raised. In the course of that Cowin said “We have rights under the development agreement. The target reservation agreement would take away those rights. I don’t object to a co-ordinated approach to market planning, which preserves our rights” . Cowin said that he wanted to stay with the existing process until he understood how the new process would work.

In April 1995 Montgomery had recommended to Power that BKC should try and approach “the matter via a structured review of Burger King/Hungry Jack’s future strategies and issues in Australia” . Reference was made to “our concerns in regard to market planning and HJ request for forty-five sites (we don’t see they have the capacity to develop at anything like such a rate)” . On 28 March 1995 Mazzone sent a memorandum by fax to Power relating to the Victorian TRA nominations and said his understanding was that Cowin would address this issue with Power personally. On 29 March 1995 Power sent a message to Hothorn about the standard TRA time frame and said that he thought that BKC might be exposing itself to unnecessary legal challenges with no standard time frames. On 7 May 1995 Power sent a memorandum to Cowin dealing with the TRA.

In summary HJPL’s submission was that from the beginning the proposal was being put forward for 45 restaurants in a preliminary agreement. Quite a number of these were under consideration. Cowin obviously took over the responsibility of dealing with the TRA proposal. If he had been cross-examined about his evidence that 17 restaurants would have been opened each year he may well have referred to the TRA issue and the hold up associated with it and his confidence that many of those restaurants could have been opened within the relevant time. This speculation was caused by BKC’s failure to cross-examine. In these circumstances, BKC’s argument that HJPL knew there would only be five restaurants opened in the year ended 30 June 1996 could not be sustained. It was not open to BKC to seek to have this Court reject his Honour’s finding by reference only to the limited number of documents on which it relied.

HJPL submitted that it was not necessary to Rolfe J’s findings that “each” of the new restaurants which HJPL would have opened would have produced operating results equal to the average results achieved by the Sample 1 restaurants, but only that those restaurants would on average have done so. The possibility that individual restaurants might under perform the Sample 1 restaurants, noting that some might do better, was taken into account in the allowance for vicissitudes. The evidence before Rolfe J was that Sample 1 represented the form of restaurant typically opened by HJPL albeit that other designs might also be adopted in relation to the exigencies of specific locations. Rolfe J was entitled to infer that HJPL would conduct its business so as to adopt the restaurant design which would make the restaurant most profitable rather than adopt a less profitable design. A calculation based on the “all stores” sample would have understated HJPL’s loss by including older restaurants which adopted less cost effective designs. The “all stores” sample included many restaurants using designs required by BKC at the time those restaurants were opened in the 1960s and 1970s. Restaurants opened from 1995 to 2000 would have adopted the then current designs. Future changes in design were appropriately dealt with by the trial judge’s allowance for contingencies.

In any event, at the trial BKC made no submission that either Sample 2 or the all stores sample was appropriate. Why, counsel asked rhetorically, should HJPL be burdened when determining its entitlement to damages by income projections based in part on inferior old stores? If one of the other samples were adopted it would be necessary to reduce the discount for contingencies.

HJPL submitted that there was no basis for concluding that Rolfe J did not allow for the possibility that not all franchises would have been renewed in determining the rate for contingencies. Rolfe J’s finding about the 40 year term was based on the evidence of Fitzjohn who was the most senior executive BKC called. The argument that in the future BKC would have pursued a strategy of regaining control of the Australian market as part of which it would have refused to grant extensions or renewals was not put at the trial.

In his oral submissions, Mr Hutley pointed out that BKC had not submitted at trial that Fitzjohn’s evidence should not be accepted. No attempt was made to explain what he said in re-examination. No evidence about the matter was sought from Hothorn, who next gave evidence. Fitzjohn was appointed in August 1993 to the position of Managing Director of the Asian Pacific Division of BKC and remained in that position until April 1994. His responsibilities extended to development in fourteen countries. He reported directly to the Chief Executive Officer of BKC. From April 1994 he held the position of Senior Vice President World Wide Development.

When he took up his position with BKC he familiarised himself with matters going to the relationship between BKC and HJPL and received advice about the Development Agreement. He well knew when the 20 year agreement had been adopted by HJPL. Rolfe J was right to accept the submission that the overwhelming likelihood was that people of Fitzjohn’s experience would know what the realities were.

Rolfe J’s reference to HJPL’s history in the business in this context was an acknowledgment that HJPL had always been a good payer. It did not involve a misunderstanding of the previous relationship between the parties. The fact that HJPL was a good payer increased the likelihood that at the end of the 20 year term BKC would do the commercially sensible thing and extend the period of the franchise. Moreover, HJPL submitted the allowance for contingencies should not be read only as an allowance for a greater number of contingencies in the longer period of 40 years, but should be read as including the possibility that not all franchises would be renewed for a further 20 years. It was submitted that a judge of the experience of Rolfe J would not so limit the contingency allowance in the context of a debate about whether the appropriate period was 20 or 40 years.

HJPL submitted that Rolfe J correctly accepted 9% as the appropriate discount rate to be used in assessing damages for the lost opportunity. In so doing he rejected a view expressed by Bryant that a discount rate of not less than 17.5% should be applied. This conclusion was complicated when his Honour came, in dealing with HJPL’s claim for equitable compensation based on a breach of fiduciary duty, to calculate HJPL’s loss of service royalty at Hungry Jack’s restaurants opened at Shell Service Stations. On that claim, his Honour preferred Bryant’s view that the rate should be 16.5% to Gower’s view that it should be 9%. Ground 3 of HJPL’s cross-appeal, the only one on the quantification of damages pressed, was against this part of Rolfe J’s decision and we will return to it.

Mr Hutley sought to demonstrate the error in Bryant’s view by considering the history of its evolution. In his first report of 1 June 1999 at para 191 Bryant expressed the view that a 16.5% discount rate should be applied based on using the CAPM and on a risk free rate of 9%. In cross-examination Bryant acknowledged that the CAPM was not the “most relevant” model for the calculation. Moreover, in applying it he had increased the discount rate to allow for the fact that HJPL was unlisted although he acknowledged that the amount of the loss suffered by HJPL would not have differed if HJPL had been a listed company. But for a 25% increment for the fact that HJPL was unlisted there was little difference between Gower and Bryant about the appropriate discount rate to be applied. Moreover his risk free rate of 9% as at August 1995 contrasted with the 5.4% adopted by Gower at the date he was preparing his report. In fact Gower said that 5.4% was the ten year government bond rate current at the time of this report.

CAPM is a method used in the market place for valuing shares or assets which involve a projected income stream. Essentially an attempt is made to work out what return the hypothetical purchaser in the market place would want on the projected income stream. Relevant is the risk free rate, usually a bond rate. To this is added a market premium. There is then applied a factor (beta) chosen by the expert valuer to reflect the relative riskiness of assets in the stock exchange which have a similar profile to the cash flow projected. Beta of one is the market average. Less than one is less risky than the market average, greater than one, more risky. The risk rate obviously varies from time to time. Bryant undertook the exercise in August 1995. The risk free rate was then 9%. He worked on a beta of .71. Gower determined the discount rate at the date of the preparation of his report by which time it had fallen from the rate in August 1995. If Bryant had done this, then leaving aside the 25% increment because the company was unlisted, the results reached by Gower and Bryant scarcely differed. In Bryant’s second report of 27 July 1999, Bryant took into account what he described as a premium for control and calculated the discount rate as “not less than 15%” .

The genesis of the 17.5% was that Bryant, for the purpose of working out the discount rate, posited a restaurant being opened in the year 2000. He then took the projected income and worked out the discount, that is the rate of return projected in that model with some refinements. In doing so it was submitted, as his Honour found, that he had departed from the assumption that damages were to be measured from August 1995. Moreover, he had agreed in cross-examination that one should not have regard to the earnings projected which are the subject of the inquiry. It is necessary to look at the business as a whole not at a projected restaurant. For these reasons HJPL submitted that Rolfe J correctly rejected the rate arrived at by Bryant using the CAPM. Appeal Against Damages Awarded Under First Head Fails

In our opinion BKC’s challenge to the award of damages in the amount amended by agreement under the first head fails. We are not persuaded that Rolfe J erred in accepting Cowin’s evidence that, but for BKC’s breaches of contract, HJPL would have opened at least 17 restaurants per year in the period from September 1995 to December 1999. BKC’s counsel at the trial did not cross-examine Cowin on this estimate. We find it hard to suppose that this was an oversight by experienced counsel assisted by experienced juniors and solicitors. The explanation for the failure to cross-examine advanced by Mr Hutley is plausible and has not been denied. In this area of the case BKC may well have regarded the argument noted by Rolfe J that HJPL had failed to prove its loss as the best argument to put. In any event, Rolfe J gave entirely appropriate reasons based on Cowin’s appearance in the witness box, his business acumen and his overall knowledge and understanding of HJPL’s business for accepting his evidence.

BKC’s failure to successfully challenge this part of Rolfe J’s conclusion leaves only BKC’s argument directed against the remaining four propositions identified in argument. As a matter of logic we find it hard to accept that an appropriate measure of damage would be arrived at by assuming that new restaurants to be opened would be represented by the average of the best and the worst and the newest and the oldest of existing restaurants. HJPL accepts that Rolfe J was wrong in saying that Sample 1 reflected the type of restaurants Cowin said would be opened. He apparently expressed no view about the matter. However, we are not convinced that that is what his Honour meant. Rolfe J expressed the view that Sample 1 was the appropriate one to use. Cowin gave evidence that at least 17 new restaurants would be opened in each of the years in question. What we think Rolfe J meant was that in his opinion the restaurants that Cowin said would be opened would be of a type reflected by Sample 1. Sample 1 consisted of 46 restaurants, Sample 2 of 33 restaurants. We are not persuaded that any error is shown in Rolfe J’s choice of Sample 1.

There was evidence given by an officer of BKC which supported Rolfe J’s reasoning process in proceeding on the basis that if the restaurants the opening of which was delayed had been opened during the period in question the chances were the initial 20 year franchise period would have been extended for a further 20 years. Again, no error is, in our opinion, shown in Rolfe J proceeding on this basis. Similarly, there is no justification for interfering with his Honour’s acceptance of expert opinion that the appropriate rate of discount was 9%.

Rolfe J recognised the existence of the chance that fewer than 17 restaurants a year would have been opened, that some restaurants of a type less profitable than Sample 1 restaurants may have been opened, that some franchises may not have been extended to 40 years. These chances he appropriately allowed for in accordance with the principles which we have already discussed. Despite some infelicities of language to which reference has already been made, we have no doubt whatever that a judge of the experience of Rolfe J would, in reaching the discount figure of 55%, have been alert to the range as well as the identity of the chances in issue. This in itself blunts the thrust of BKC’s arguments against the other propositions. At most those arguments, in our opinion, were no more than an indication that in predicting the future there is a chance that some part or parts of the prediction would be wrong if the hypothesis could be compared with the reality.

Rolfe J said that he had adopted a percentage for discounting for contingencies and vicissitudes which would have regard to the risk, as best he could assess it, based on the history of HJPL and his estimation of the future as disclosed by the evidence. His Honour said: “In making that assessment it is appropriate to have regard to the possibility that Cowin’s forecasts may prove unduly optimistic, an assumption which in no way derogates from my acceptance of his evidence.” Also the discount was expressed as intended to take account of his Honour’s view that the 40 year period for the franchisee agreements lost should be adopted. We do not accept that his Honour did this only on the basis that during the longer period there was a higher chance for contingencies to occur and disregarded the chance that some of the franchise agreements which would have been entered into during the time in question would not have been renewed.

HJPL submitted this discount allowed, inter alia, for the possibility that HJPL would have been unable to renew the relevant franchise agreements for a second term of 20 years and that some of the restaurants opened by HJPL would not have been Sample 1 restaurants. However, HJPL submitted that any discount had to be determined in the circumstance that Cowin’s evidence concerning the readiness, willingness and ability of HJPL to open and develop the restaurants during the relevant period had not been the subject of cross-examination by BKC. In particular Cowin had not been cross-examined as to his evidence that HJPL would have opened at least 17 company owned restaurants per year in that period if it had not been disapproved for expansion by BKC and that he would personally have funded such expansion had it been necessary for him to do so. HJPL led expert accounting evidence to the effect that if the number of restaurants opened by HJPL after 1995 was 11 restaurants per annum rather than 17 restaurants per annum (a reduction of 35% on the number of restaurants opened) and that reduction was implemented by eliminating restaurant openings in South Australia and Victoria, HJPL’s loss relating to company owned restaurants would be reduced by a lesser percentage, 22.5%.

That evidence also showed that any reduction as to the number of restaurants which HJPL would have opened in the period from 1995 to 2000 should also be reflected by a reduction in the number of restaurants which would be opened to recoup HJPL’s loss, and that a reduction in both components of the model would be likely to cause a relatively small decrease, or even an increase, in the quantum of HJPL’s loss. HJPL submitted further, that, in making the 55% deduction, Rolfe J did not address the submission that the damages for loss of opportunity to open new company owned restaurants in the relevant period were calculated on the basis that HJPL could mitigate its damages so as gradually to recoup the restaurants it had been unable to open in the period. Rolfe J failed to address the possibility that BKC might again wrongfully withhold expansion approval or take active steps to obstruct HJPL’s opening of new restaurants with a result that HJPL would have been unable to recoup or fully recoup the loss which it had previously suffered. The inability of HJPL to open new restaurants after the date of judgment increased the quantum of HJPL’s loss as put to the trial judge. This possibility would have tended to reduce the discount.

Precision in assessing the chance, that in other circumstances events might have occurred in the past or would have occurred in the future, is impossible. An appellate court should not lightly interfere with the trial Judge’s assessment of how such imprecise considerations should be equated to what must, in order that a calculation be made, be stated as an exact percentage. The result is not so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the inference is that error has been made: compare Moran v McMahon (1985) 3 NSWLR 700 at 719. The range of the upper limit and the lower limit is considerable. For our part, having carefully read what Rolfe J said, we do not think his Honour went outside that range. Accordingly, BKC’s challenge to the amount awarded under the first head of damage fails.

Even so, the appeal under this head must be allowed so as to reduce the damages awarded to $38,369,250. Second Head of Damages - Loss of Opportunity to Introduce Third Party Franchisees

Under the terms of the Service Agreement, as amended by an agreement dated 12 December 1991, HJPL was entitled to an initial service fee of US$15,000 in relation to each restaurant opened by a franchisee introduced by it to BKC, and a monthly service royalty of 2.5% of gross receipts of that restaurant. HJPL claimed and, for the purpose of quantifying HJPL’s damages under this head, Gower was asked to assume that, but for BKC’s refusal to permit HJPL to introduce third party franchisees, HJPL would, from May 1995 until December 1999, have introduced 77 restaurants. Under this head damages were assessed on the assumption that the opportunity lost to introduce third party franchisees during the period from May 1995 to December 1999 would never be caught up and so never recouped.

Rolfe J awarded $23,955,000 for this claim, an amount calculated by taking $39,925,000 derived from Gower’s calculation of the loss and deducting 40% for contingencies and vicissitudes. In his report Gower incorporated McCarthy’s prediction of the number of third party franchisee restaurants that would be introduced.

The grounds of appeal against this head of damages can conveniently be divided into five sections: (i) Grounds 204-207 that the trial judge erred in incorporating in his assessment of this head of damage, 77 as the number of third party franchisees which HJPL would have introduced over the relevant years. (ii) Grounds 208-210 that the trial judge erred in failing to deal with the issue of whether HJPL would have been able to recoup the loss of the opportunity to introduce third party franchisees and in assessing this head of damages on the basis of calculations which assumed that HJPL would not be able to recoup the loss of the opportunity to introduce third party franchisees. (iii) Ground 211 that the trial judge erred in adopting calculations of the amount of damages which, inconsistently with his findings, assumed a rate for incremental overhead of 6% rather than 7% of franchise revenue. (iv) Ground 212-213 that the trial judge erred in adopting as the appropriate discount rate for the purpose of assessing damage a rate of 9% and ought to have adopted as the appropriate discount rate 16.5% or alternatively 17.5% or alternatively 15%. (v) Grounds 214-215 that the trial judge erred in adopting 40% as an appropriate rate of discount in respect of contingencies and vicissitudes and ought to have adopted a significantly higher discount rate to account for the possibility that the loss could be entirely or partially recouped.

Ground 2 of the HJPL’s amended notice of cross-appeal, that the 40% discount for contingencies and vicissitudes in quantifying damages for HJPL’s loss of opportunity to earn an initial service fee and continuing service royalties by introducing third party franchisees to BKC for the period from May 1995 was too high, was not pressed.

BKC submitted that Rolfe J erroneously accepted each of the following propositions and assumptions which were central to his findings on damages under this head: (i) that HJPL would have introduced 77 third party franchisees over the relevant years; (ii) that HJPL would not be able to recoup the loss of the opportunity to introduce the third party franchisees; (iii) that incremental overheads would represent 6% of the franchise revenue; (iv) that HJPL’s losses should be calculated from the date of breach and made subject to a discount rate of 9%; (v) that damages should be discounted by 40% for contingencies and vicissitudes.

BKC submitted that Gower’s prediction for the very first year did not check with reality and was known to be wrong. Of the 77 restaurants predicted, Gower assumed that 20 would be opened in the year ended 30 June 1996. That accorded with McCarthy’s memorandum of 30 May 1994. In fact, during that period, six third party franchise restaurants were opened including two Shell restaurants, one at Flemington and the other at Chullora. But again, BKC was faced with the difficulty that Cowin expressed in his statement the opinion that McCarthy’s prediction was realistic and he was not cross-examined about this opinion.

McCarthy gave evidence that, but for BKC’s conduct, in each of the States and Territories and in each of the years 1995/1996 through to 1998/1999, third party franchisees introduced by HJPL would have opened at least the restaurants predicted in the development plan. Cowin’s evidence was that these projections were realistic. BKC’s attack on these predictions was based on tracking reports prepared by HJPL. McCarthy gave evidence that the tracking reports related only to potential franchisees who had specific identified sites. As to HJPL’s National Development Reports, also relied upon by BKC, McCarthy said that if it was not certain that a franchisee was proceeding or if the franchisee was part way through the process, it was not unusual to omit them from the development report contained in the quarterly report. McCarthy referred to examples of franchisees not included in this material. Further, as McCarthy said, by August 1995 the position was distorted by BKC’s refusal to permit recruitment of third party franchisees throughout the period after May 1995. Restaurant openings after that date were by franchisees who had been introduced before.

The assumption that there would be no recoupment for lost third party franchisees was consistent with the likelihood that a franchisee who was unable to obtain a franchise to operate a Hungry Jack’s restaurant would seek a franchise from another fast food operator.

An important part of the assumption Gower was asked to make was that the franchise agreements with the third parties would be for a 20 year period and that the term would be extended to 40 years, which, again, was consistent with the evidence of Fitzjohn which was accepted.

Rolfe J said at para 636: “BKC’s attack was, firstly, that the number of restaurants for which HJPL contended would not have been achieved, notwithstanding that it was founded, in part, on the uncontradicted evidence of Cowin. There seemed to be no substantial dispute on the figures, the claim of HJPL based on the 9% discount rate, which I accept and which was in issue, being $39,925,000. In my opinion, the contingencies involved in this exercise are not quite as great. I accept that there were franchisees available, and that HJPL would have taken advantage of them. In my judgment, there should be a discount of 40%, reducing $39,925,000 to $23,955,000.”

His Honour did not deal with the submission that this part of the claim should also have been on a recoupment basis. BKC submitted that non-recoupment was a fundamentally illogical assumption and not supported by any evidence. There was no reason why the same analysis in favour of recoupment adopted for recovery of damages under the first head should not apply to third party franchisees.

HJPL submitted that recovery on a recoupment basis was not appropriate in determining the damages for the loss of opportunity to recruit franchisees. The introduction of third party franchisees did not impose the same strain upon HJPL’s resources as developing its own restaurants, a contrast that was not challenged at the trial. Whereas the number of company restaurants that HJPL could open was limited, there was no similar limitation on the recruitment of third party franchisees. Accordingly HJPL’s claim was based on the absolute loss of the opportunity to recruit third party franchisees during the period in question. This, HJPL submitted, was consistent with evidence that on average it received about 150 to 200 inquiries per month from persons interested in becoming a franchisee operating a Hungry Jack’s restaurant. The number indeed may have been greater. The evidence was that from May 1995 until the end of 1996 a large number of requests and inquiries were received by HJPL from potential franchisees. By the end of 1996 the market place had become aware that HJPL could no longer arrange such franchises with BKC.

The third proposition or assumption that BKC challenged was that incremental overheads would represent 6% of the franchise revenue. For no satisfactory reason this rate, one ultimately arrived at by Gower, was inconsistent with the 7% discount for overheads used in the claim for equitable compensation which Rolfe J accepted because Bryant had consistently adopted it. For reasons given when we come to the claim for equitable damages we think the damages under this head should be adjusted to allow for a discount of 7% for overheads.

BKC submitted that the likelihood that the loss would be recouped constituted a very large contingency which Rolfe J did not take into account. This justified an increase in the contingency discount of 40%. HJPL reiterated its entitlement to an initial service fee and a monthly service royalty under the terms of the Service Agreement as amended on 12 December 1991, and submitted that there was little uncertainty about its loss of opportunity in light of the number of inquiries it received each month up until 1996. The assumption as to the number of restaurants which would have been opened was consistent with that made in the development plan dated 30 May 1994 and supported by the evidence of both McCarthy and Cowin. Cowin was not cross-examined on this matter. Appeal Against Damages Awarded Under the Second Head Succeeds Only in Relation to the Discount for Incremental Overheads

In our opinion BKC’s challenge to the award of damages under this second head, except that directed to the discount for incremental overheads, also fails. We reiterate that we are not persuaded that Rolfe J erred in accepting Cowin’s evidence endorsing McCarthy’s predictions about the number of third party franchisees introduced by HJPL to BKC that would have opened restaurants between May 1995 and the end of December 1999 but for BKC’s conduct. Rolfe J accepted a calculation based on an absolute irretrievable loss of the opportunity to introduce those franchisees. There was nothing to support BKC’s submission of a high chance of recoupment or indeed any chance of recoupment. HJPL’s argument that this was the correct approach to assessment under this head is, we think, compelling. It is an approach in a sense inconsistent with the approach taken under the first head but that inconsistency is justified and BKC advanced no other argument against it. Again for the reasons already expressed under the first head, no justification has been shown for interfering with Rolfe J’s acceptance of expert opinion that the appropriate rate of discount for present value was 9%. In our opinion, the appeal fails on this ground. Third Head of Damages - Equitable Compensation for Loss of “Service Royalties”

Under this head HJPL claimed to be compensated for the loss of a monthly service royalty of 2.5% of gross receipts for a 20 year term from the date of opening of restaurants at seven Shell service stations which HJPL would have earned had it provided the services to those restaurants even though they were not operated by HJPL. The seven service stations were at Granard Road (North Queensland), North Mackay, Westlakes, Campbelltown, East Ringwood, Jacana, and Mudgeeraba. Warman International Limited v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544 is an example of the general application of the three primary remedies consequent upon a breach of fiduciary obligations identified by Viscount Haldane LC in Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 at 956-7 of which one is equitable compensation: see Warman International at 556.

The claim was for $4,405,000 based on a 9% discount rate. Rolfe J said at para 637: “Gower’s evidence, at a financial level, on this aspect was not challenged and, in his oral submissions, Mr Oslington identified the issues between Gower and Bryant as ones concerning the allowance which ought to be made for overheads and the discount rate.”

His Honour continued at 638-639: “In his initial report Gower made no allowance for overhead and used a discount rate of 9%. Bryant’s response commenced at paragraph 245 of his report of 1 June 1999: part of Exhibit 9. Bryant stated the assumptions on which Gower proceeded, including that HJPL would have incurred no incremental overhead to provide services to these restaurants, and noted that that approach differed from the one taken by Gower in calculating the loss relating to third party franchisees for which he allowed 2.5%. Bryant considered that 7%, being the amount he had applied for third party franchisees, should be allowed. In the Agreed Statement of Experts, paragraph 16, Gower had provided for 6% out of franchise revenues, whilst Bryant had asserted that at least 7% was required. In my opinion, Bryant has shown a consistency in approach, which should be followed, and, if that is done, the difference in the figures does not justify departing from Bryant’s assessment of 7%. In his report of 25 August 1999, part of Exhibit U, Gower recalculated the figures by providing a 2.5% figure, thus reducing $2,892,000 to $2,819,000, the base figure being worked on a 9% discount rate. Assuming the 9% discount rate for the moment, I consider the figure of $2,892,000 should be reduced by 7% ie to $2,689,560 to which tax at 36%, ie $968,242, must be added thus giving a figure of $3,657,802.”

Gower maintained that the proper discount rate was 9% whereas Bryant was of the view that 16.5% should be allowed on the basis that Gower had failed to take into account the correct date of the losses. His Honour observed that the losses were far more susceptible of being attributed to dates certain, that is to say the dates upon which each restaurant was opened, than those with which he had dealt up to that point in his judgment. For that reason, his Honour regarded Bryant’s analysis as the more compelling founded, as it was, on the legal proposition (which Bryant assumed) that the damages flowed from the date of breach after which the Court had a discretion to award interest. His Honour said: “The result, as I understand it, as reflected in Appendix F1 to Bryant’s report of 1 June 1999 and produces a figure of $2,164,897. In my opinion, that is the basic figure which should be applied.”

Rolfe J continued at 641: “Mr Oslington submitted that the contingencies and the continued enjoyment of the royalty must also be considered as the claim was to the year 2017 and based on a continuance at Shell sites until that time. On the other hand Shell, in its settlement agreement with HJPL, has indicated a desire to continue the restaurants. In my opinion the figure to which I have referred should be reduced by 30% to reflect the contingencies, ie rounded to $1,515,428.”

The first three grounds of appeal against this award of damages (grounds 216-218) were that Rolfe J erred in adopting calculations of the amount which “inconsistently with his findings” : (i) assumed a rate or rates for incremental overhead other than 7% of the franchise revenue; (ii) did not calculate such damages as at the date of breach, after determining the relevant date of breach for this purpose; and (iii) incorporated an error in that the discount had been calculated by reference to the pre-tax rather than the post-tax figures. The Court was asked to direct that calculations be done to reflect the trial judge’s findings. Ground 218 relating to the calculation by reference to pre-tax rather than post-tax figures has been resolved by the parties.

Two further grounds (219 and 220) related to a claimed overlap under this head of damage and the “cannibalisation” claim. The cannibalisation claim related to three of the seven Shell restaurants the subject of this claim, namely those at Granard Road, North Mackay and Westlakes. HJPL submitted that if there was an overlap the appropriate way to deal with it was to deduct the amount of damages awarded under this head in respect of those three restaurants.

In ground 3 of its amended notice of cross-appeal HJPL cross-appealed against the discount rate of 16.5%, saying it should have been 9%. Ground 4 of the cross-appeal claiming that the 30% discount for contingencies and vicissitudes was too high, was not pressed. The contingency identified by BKC and referred to by Rolfe J in para 641 of his reasons for judgment was whether Shell would continue to operate until the year 2017. His Honour acknowledged that in the settlement agreement with HJPL Shell had indicated a desire to continue the restaurants.

BKC identified what it said were several mistakes which required re-calculation. The calculation did not accord with the allowance for overheads found by his Honour at 7%. BKC submitted that Rolfe J misunderstood what Bryant had done. Appendix F1 was a model Bryant prepared which included overheads based on the approach Gower had taken in his calculation of HJPL’s loss relating to third party franchisees, namely, an amount of 2.5% for incremental and other costs. His Honour based his calculation on Appendix F1 which did not reflect the 7% for overheads asserted by Bryant in the agreed statement of experts. In answer to question 17, “[w]hat allowance should be made for ‘Other Costs’ associated with the third party franchisee operations? (The overhead assumption)” , Bryant said “an allowance of at least 7% is required” . Gower’s calculation was 6% of franchise revenues. Although his Honour found that damages should be calculated as at the date of breach, Appendix F1 was prepared on an instruction to assume a breach date of 31 December 1996.

HJPL submitted that Bryant did not develop in any way the reason for using the allowance of 7% in any subsequent calculation or in his evidence. Gower adopted a 2.5% overhead charge. HJPL submitted that there was absent from Bryant’s opinion that “consistency in approach” which Rolfe J appeared to rely on in reaching the conclusion he did.

In its cross-appeal HJPL submitted that his Honour should have preferred the 9% discount rate proposed by Gower for reasons he gave in respect of the other heads of loss. The difficulty of applying Bryant’s discount rate extended to the quantification of damages for loss of opportunity to earn service royalties at Shell restaurants.

Having rejected the 16.5% discount rate on the claims for lost opportunity Rolfe J should also have rejected it in calculating the damages for breach of fiduciary duty. HJPL reiterated that Bryant had expressly abandoned his calculation of a 16.5% discount rate and conceded that his report of 1 June 1999 was in this respect incorrect. HJPL submitted that applying the discount rate of 9% Rolfe J should have found the loss suffered by HJPL for breach of fiduciary duty was $4,405,000 not $2,164,897. The discount of 30% for contingencies reduced the damages to $3,083,500 not $1,515,428.

The evidence relied upon was as follows: (i) In his first report of 29 March 1999 and in the Agreed Statement of Experts dated 9 July 1999 Gower expressed the view that a 9% discount rate was appropriate. In the Agreed Statement he said he relied on a risk free rate of 5.5% (compare 3.5% in his first report). In Bryant’s first report dated 1 June 1999 and the Agreed Statement of experts dated 9 July 1999 Bryant expressed the view that a 16.5% discount should be applied in reliance on the CAPM and based on a risk free rate of 9%. In his report of 27 July 1999 Bryant supported discount rates of 15% or 17.5%. Gower did not agree that the application of the CAPM by Bryant was appropriate and noted that Bryant had made no allowance for a premium for control in his calculation, as that method would have required, a fact which Bryant conceded in cross-examination. (ii) In cross-examination Bryant acknowledged that, when he wrote his first report, he thought that the CAPM methodology was the correct way to determine the discount rate applicable to HJPL’s damages, but that he had regard to a different methodology in his second report and that he now took the view that CAPM was not the primary way to arrive at a discount rate. Bryant’s evidence was that the CAPM model which he adopted in his first report had “some relevance” to the issues in the proceedings, but that he did not think it was the “most relevant” model for a calculation of damages. (iii) In applying the CAPM model Bryant had increased the discount rate which he applied to 16.5% to allow for the fact that HJPL was unlisted, although he acknowledged that the amount of the loss suffered by HJPL would not have differed if HJPL had been a listed company. Bryant acknowledged that the effect of his reasoning was that a different discount rate would have been applied and that the amount of damages recoverable by HJPL would have been different, if HJPL had been a listed rather than an unlisted company. But for Bryant’s application of a 25% increment for the fact that HJPL was unlisted, he and Gower would have had little difference as to the appropriate discount rate to be applied, using the CAPM methodology. (iv) Bryant acknowledged that, in applying the CAPM method, he also adopted a risk free rate of 9% as at August 1995, by contrast with the risk free rate of 5.4% at the date Gower was preparing his report. In re-examination Bryant sought to justify the high discount rate which he had adopted by suggesting that the risk free rate on the date he gave evidence, 16 August 1999, was 7.5%. On 23 August 1999 BKC’s counsel advised the court that Bryant had been incorrect as to that matter and that the relevant rate was 6.54% and not 7.5% on 16 August 1999. While the CAPM method for determining the discount rate required a beta factor to be incorporated in the calculation, Bryant did not know whether his calculation adopted a beta as at 1995, consistent with his assumptions as to the date of which HJPL’s loss was to be calculated, or a current beta which would have been inconsistent with that assumption. Bryant acknowledged that, had he chosen the applicable risk free rate at the time Gower’s report was prepared of 5.4% he would have derived a discount rate of 9.6% by applying the CAPM methodology. (v) In his second report dated 27 July 1999 Bryant abandoned the discount rate of 16.5% which he previously supported and instead supported discount rates of 15% or 17.5%. Bryant did not calculate the amount of damages which would have resulted in the application of those discount rates, in relation to this or other heads of HJPL’s damages.

Accordingly it was submitted his Honour should not have adopted a discount rate of 16.5% in calculating HJPL’s damages under this head. His Honour should have for the same reasons given by him in calculating damages under the first and second heads used the 9% discount rate.

HJPL submitted that the loss of opportunity to earn service royalties, being a deprivation of the ability to earn a periodic series of payments occasioned by the continuing conduct of BKC in breach of its fiduciary obligations was of its very nature a loss suffered by reason of a continuing breach. A finding that damages under this head were more susceptible of being attributed to specific (and various) dates did not thereby validate Bryant’s calculation, which assumed that all damage occurred on 1 August 1995.

In our opinion, it was open for Rolfe J to conclude that the appropriate allowance for overheads should be 7%. Having done so, his Honour mistakenly failed to calculate damages in accordance with this conclusion. BKC is entitled to have the damages adjusted accordingly. On the other hand, we are persuaded that, in accordance with the arguments put by HJPL and consistent with his Honour’s conclusions under the first two heads of damage, the discount rate to find present value should have been 9%. HJPL’s third ground of cross-appeal therefore succeeds.

Gower’s calculations assumed that the restaurants on the Shell sites opened between July 1996 and March 1997. However, instead of discounting the alleged losses to the opening dates he discounted the losses projected to be incurred in the years after 31 December 1999. In his report of 1 June 1999 Bryant said: “Whether Gower’s calculation of loss using the loss date assumptions is overstated or understated depends on the relationship between the discount rate applied, the time between the damage date and the expected date of judgment and the rate at which interest would have been granted by the court on the losses that HJPL is held to have suffered.”

For reasons we have already given by reference to the High Court decision in Johnson v Perez , we think in this case also there are pragmatic grounds for assessing damages as at 31 December 1999. According to HJPL’s written submissions if the mistaken discount for pre-tax rather than post-tax cash flows is corrected and the discount for overheads is increased to 7% and the discount for present value reduced to 9% the loss as determined by Gower for this head of damage would be $2,689,292. Fourth Head of Damages - Cannibalisation Claims

Clause 7.3 of the Development Agreement provided that, if HJPL was in compliance with the Development Schedule, its prior approval was required to the opening by BKC of new restaurants in the development States, and it could withhold that approval if a BKC restaurant at that location would be likely substantially and adversely to affect sales at an existing HJPL location.

HJPL alleged that BKC had breached the Development Agreement by authorising Shell to open restaurants at three sites, the first on 8 July 1996 at Granard Road, which was said to have “cannibalised” sales at four HJPL restaurants in the vicinity, the second on 8 January 1997 at North Mackay, which was said to have “cannibalised” sales at one HJPL restaurant in the vicinity and the third on 30 December 1996 at Westlakes, which was said to have “cannibalised” sales at two HJPL restaurants in the vicinity, over HJPL’s objection. Each of the three restaurants was the subject of HJPL’s successful claim for equitable compensation.

Gower was asked to make assumptions about the percentage reduction in sales suffered by nearby HJPL restaurants as a result of the cannibalisation. These assumptions were taken from research commissioned by BKC from Jebb Holland Dimasi and Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler. The first report of Jebb Holland Dimasi was dated 20 May 1996 before the opening of any of the three restaurants. A second market research report prepared by the same firm was dated 18 July 1996, shortly after the opening of Granard Road, and made certain adjustments after BKC had requested a “recalibration of sales transfers” taking into account some additional matters. Gower assumed that the opening of the Shell restaurant in Granard Road would result in the cannibalisation of sales at four HJPL restaurants, Algester, Annerley, Mount Ommaney and Sunnybank Plaza, that the opening of the Shell restaurant at Westlakes would result in the cannibalisation of sales at HJPL’s Port Adelaide and Woodville restaurants and that the opening of the Shell restaurant at North Mackay would result in the cannibalisation of sales at HJPL’s Mackay restaurant. The last assumption was derived from the market research study prepared by Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler which was dated November 1996 before the opening of that restaurant.

In each case Gower started with the assumed percentage loss of sales and from that determined the profit lost at the HJPL restaurant in question for the relevant period. He assumed that the period of loss in respect of each restaurant commenced on 1 August 1996 and would continue until the maturity of the 20 year franchised period for each restaurant. These varied from 4 December 2007 to 30 March 2015. For the relevant period up to 30 June 1999 Gower used the actual sales for each restaurant to calculate lost profit by reference to the assumed lost sales. After that date Gower proceeded to the maturity dates for each restaurant taking account of a forecast growth for ten years up to 30 June 2009. After making various adjustments to take account of information as it came forward, Gower in his report of 10 July 1999 calculated the net present value of loss before tax at $3,088,000.

Rolfe J said at 642-644: “... Gower was asked to make certain assumptions as to the extent of the cannibalisation on nearby HJPL stores. The assumptions referred to in paragraphs 36.63 and 36.64 were taken from a research study prepared by an entity commissioned by BKC to determine the extent of cannibalisation. There was a deal of evidence on this point, which, in my opinion, is adequately summarised in Mr Hutley’s written submissions. Mr Oslington submitted, Tp 4193, that Gower’s report was based solely on a number of assumptions he made in which he did not address the criticism of the conclusions reached by Bryant and the reasons Bryant had for reaching them. On the other hand, Bryant was cross-examined to some effect, as was Power, to show that the assumptions on which Gower proceeded, stemming as they did from the source to which I have referred, were not unreasonable. However, it is not correct to say that Gower did not address the criticisms proffered by Bryant, his figure having been reduced from $3.4m to $3,088m. I am not satisfied that there is an overlapping between this and the previous claim. Each is predicated on a different basis and is separate. The claim in this respect is for $3,088,000, which I accept. This claim must also be discounted. There are difficulties in making an assessment of the loss, notwithstanding that I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there would have been one. I would reduce it by 40% to $1,852,800.”

BKC appealed on the grounds that Rolfe J erred in finding that sales at the HJPL restaurants had been cannibalised by the opening of Hungry Jack’s restaurants at Shell service stations (grounds 221 and 222), erred in proceeding on the basis that there was not any overlap between the cannibalisation claim and the loss of service royalty (grounds 223 and 224) and erred in adopting 40% as an appropriate rate of discount for contingencies and vicissitudes (grounds 225 and 226).

BKC complained that Rolfe J seemed to have assumed that the research studies determined the actual extent of cannibalisation. In his evidence, Bryant pointed out that sales in four of the seven cannibalised restaurants had increased after the opening of the Shell restaurants, although he quite fairly conceded, in cross-examination, that it was not possible to conclude from his analysis of the actual results of the restaurants that there had been no harm, only that there had been no decline in sales.

The point was made that a concession by Bryant that it was not possible to conclude from the figures that harm had not been caused, was not evidence that harm had been caused. No witness was called by HJPL to say that loss had occurred or that growth rates had been stifled or in any other way affected. BKC submitted that reliance on a prediction made before an event was not a sufficient basis for his Honour to conclude, after the event, that the event had had the consequences predicted. His Honour ought to have found that there was no sufficient evidence that cannibalisation had occurred at all.

Furthermore, it was submitted that: (i) the response by Gower in reducing the amount to $3.08 million had nothing to do with the criticism that his assumption had no foundation. (ii) Gower’s figures utilised cannibalisation rates which had later been corrected by the market research firm in question yet Gower’s calculations remained unchanged. (iii) Gower assumed that the cannibalisation would occur at the same rate for all affected restaurants for the entire period of the franchise for each of those restaurants. No evidence was proffered in support of this assumption. BKC called its former development manager, Power, to say that any cannibalisation effect would not extend beyond 24 to 36 months.

So far as overlap was concerned, an arrangement under which HJPL would have reaped service royalties from Hungry Jack’s restaurants located at Shell service stations would have required Hungry Jack’s restaurants to be located at those Shell service stations. If these restaurants had been located at those Shell service stations, HJPL would have suffered the reduction in trade that it alleged it did suffer at its restaurants as a result of the opening of the Shell restaurants. HJPL could not have avoided suffering this loss of trade and, at the same time, received service royalties. Accordingly, Rolfe J should not have granted relief to HJPL in respect of both this claim and the claim for service royalties.

Finally, given the complete lack of any objective evidence that there had been any loss at all, his Honour’s allowance of a figure of only 40% as a contingency was manifestly inadequate.

HJPL submitted that there could be no suggestion that his Honour was not well aware that these reports were obtained before the three Shell restaurants were opened. Bryant noted that sales at four of the seven restaurants operated by HJPL had increased after the opening of the Shell restaurants although sales at Algester and Annerley had decreased by 2% and 4.7% respectively and sales at Mackay by 19.7%. However, Bryant conceded that the fact that particular restaurants showed growth in sales did not establish that the growth in business at those restaurants had not been affected by the opening of Shell restaurants. HJPL submitted there was no reason why Rolfe J should not assume that the research studies obtained by BKC from well established service providers were not effective to assess the loss of sales which HJPL would suffer as a result of the opening of the new restaurants. There was nothing to prevent BKC attempting to qualify the accuracy of those studies by calling evidence suggesting weaknesses because they were predictive rather than historical or otherwise.

Power’s evidence was that, if a new restaurant was opened, customers who found the alternative location most convenient would, in all probability, stay with that restaurant, or split their business between the two. BKC referred to the revision of the cannibalisation rates. HJPL submitted these were of uncertain status because of BKC’s intervention in the survey process. In any event, the possibility that the rate of cannibalisation accorded more with the revised than the original figures was reflected in Rolfe J’s substantial discount of 40% for contingencies and vicissitudes. The reports did not identify any decline in cannibalisation effects over time. Power believed that cannibalisation would not extend beyond 36 months but acknowledged that this could be affected by matters such as convenience of parking, the availability of petrol and whether a restaurant at a service station which also provided convenience items would affect the matter.

HJPL submitted that the evidence of experts was the best evidence as to the effect of cannibalisation. The business of the HJPL restaurants depended upon impulse selling. Fluctuations of sales follow from various competitive pressures. Interference with an existing restaurant was not established simply by showing a decrease in the sales of that restaurant. The effect of the establishment of other restaurants in the area may well be a reduction of the rate of increase of business. The nature of the inquiry was such that the very best evidence was what experts in marketing fields regarded as the likely impact of other restaurants. The witnesses relied on were persons retained by BKC to work out the likely effect of the opening of new restaurants.

To the extent that there was any overlap between the loss resulting from cannibalisation and the loss of service royalties to HJPL, HJPL submitted the amount of that overlap was readily corrected. HJPL was entitled to recover damages for its cannibalisation claim unaffected. However, it could not also recover service royalties for these three restaurants. Its claim for damages relating to loss of service royalties should accordingly be reduced.

Jebb Holland Dimasi’s report of 20 May 1996 described itself as an evaluation of the expected sales transfer from the existing Hungry Jack’s outlets to the new restaurant. It was based on questions put to customers leaving the existing restaurants about the likelihood of their visiting a new restaurant. The expression “sales transfer” demonstrates that the material HJPL relied upon assumed that the existing restaurants were losing sales which would be gained by the new cannibal restaurant. Hence, they would have been taken into account in the calculation of equitable compensation for the loss of a monthly service royalty of 2.5% of gross receipts for a 20 year term from opening of the new restaurant.

Rolfe J addressed this problem by saying only that he was not satisfied there was an “overlapping” . The problem was not made easier by the way in which HJPL set about establishing the amount of its damage, namely by relying on predictive research studies rather than upon existing evidence of sales and profits to show any loss actually suffered by the restaurants in question after the three Shell service stations opened.

In our opinion, the damages awarded for cannibalisation by Rolfe J overlapped the damages awarded for the same restaurants for equitable compensation. To the extent that the sales of the existing HJPL restaurants suffered, the cannibal restaurants’ sales were boosted by the “sales transfer” and hence the amount of equitable compensation calculated as a percentage of gross receipts.

Gower’s calculation of equitable compensation was based, at least up to 31 December 1998, on actual sales of the Shell restaurants. Accordingly, it necessarily includes and more truly reflects any gain enjoyed by the new Shell restaurants at the expense of the existing HJPL restaurants, “the sales transfer” , and compensates HJPL by reference to that gain and the loss to the cannibalised restaurants it reflects. We are not persuaded that, on the basis of the research predictions relied upon to support the fourth head of damage, HJPL was entitled to anything more.

In our opinion, in order to make good its claim based on cannibalisation HJPL had to prove the damages to which it was entitled. We are not persuaded that the problem of overlapping can be overcome by seeking to reduce or withdraw the claim for equitable compensation in respect of the three restaurants. In order to succeed under this head HJPL had to prove that it was entitled to something more than the damages it recovered as equitable compensation. This it failed to do and accordingly its claim under this head should have been rejected. Conclusion on Damages

The appeal against damages under the first head should be allowed and the amount recoverable under that head reduced to $38,369,250. The appeal against damages under the second and third heads should be allowed in each case by adjusting the amount awarded by increasing the discount for overheads to 7%. In addition the amount awarded under the third head should be adjusted to correct the mistaken discounting of pre-tax rather than post-tax cash flows. The appeal against the damages awarded under the fourth head should be allowed and the total damages awarded reduced by the amount awarded under this head. That part of HJPL’s cross-appeal which was pressed, ground 3, also succeeds and the discount rate for damages awarded under the third head should be reduced to 9% and the amount awarded under this head adjusted accordingly.

According to Gower’s calculations, HJPL’s damages under the third head, after making the adjustments referred to, should be $2,689,292.

To summarise, the awards under all four heads should be set aside. The following awards should be substituted. Three can be calculated by the Court but the other one will need to be calculated by the parties. Head One For delay in opening company owned restaurants, $38,369,250. Head Two For loss of opportunity to introduce third party franchisees, to be adjusted by increasing the discount for overheads to 7%. Head Three For equitable compensation for the loss of service royalties, $2,689,292. Head Four For the cannibalisation claims, nil. OVERALL CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

We have concluded that for substantially the same reasons as reached by Rolfe J, HJPL was entitled to succeed on its summons and was entitled, with some variations to the amounts awarded by the trial judge, to an award of damages. Save for the cross appeal on damages to the extent discussed, it has not been necessary to consider the other issues raised in the cross claim and notice of contention.

The orders we make are as follows: (i) Appeal allowed in part; (ii) Cross-appeal allowed in part; (iii) Set aside Rolfe J’s damages verdict and substitute therefor an award of damages in favour of the respondent in a sum to be calculated in accordance with these reasons for judgment and in particular para 761 above. (iv) Parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the judgment within fourteen (14) days from today; (v) Costs reserved. (vi) Appeal 40325/00 (the Murray Street appeal) is dismissed with costs reserved. (vii) Appellant to file and serve its written submissions of not more than five (5) pages in relation to costs fourteen (14) days from today; (viii) Respondent to file and serve its written submissions of not more than five (5) pages in relation to costs seven (7) days thereafter; (ix) Parties to approach the Registrar within three (3) days of all submissions being filed for the appointment of a date for hearing of the question of costs.