Brisbane office (07) 3180 0150
Gold Coast office (07) 5529 8803
Home >  Blog >  Michel's Patisserie in the Courts - Prior Representations

Michel's Patisserie in the Courts - Prior Representations

Posted by Elizabeth Gore-Jones on 26 May 2017

In what is a seemingly busy time for franchising and the courts we have the new judgment of Guirguis Pty Ltd v Michel's Patisserie System Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 83

In point form this is what you need to know:

  1. The franchisee alleged the franchisor had made misrepresentations as to, amongst other things, the delivery and quality of stock and failed to disclose a key supplier had shut down impacting on a number of franchisees;
  2. The franchisees did not outline the alleged representations in the Prior Representations Deed;
  3. The Prior Representations Deed directed the franchisee and guarantors to specify all statements made to them and upon which they relied in deciding to enter into the franchise agreement;
  4. The Prior Representations Deed contained 24 topics that the franchisee had to consider when completing it.  None of those topics covered the alleged misrepresentations before the courts;
  5. On appeal the Court of Appeal said the Prior Representations Deed was only part of the evidence that should be taken into account.  Amongst other things they said the Prior Representations Deed is part of the evidentiary process but does not preclude claims for misleading and deceptive conduct;
  6. The Court of Appeal said (amongst other things) the primary judge should have asked:
  • did the franchisor engage in the conduct alleged? and
  • was the conduct misleading?

An order was made for a retrial and the franchisor, business broker and other parties were ordered to pay the franchisee's and guarantor's costs.

Key Take Away Points:

- franchisor's should check the wording of their prior representation deeds;

- franchisor's should not solely rely upon those deeds as a cover all protection;

- franchisees may reconsider if the signing of a prior representation deed precludes them from taking action.

Note: This is a very brief overview which leaves out a lot of details to get the underlying message across in a bite size piece.  If you want the whole picture you should read the relevant cases or obtain legal advice about your legal position

    Author: Elizabeth Gore-Jones
    About: Elizabeth specialises in franchising law. She lectures at Bond University PLA in franchising, she sits on the Queensland Law Society Franchising Committee, she is a past member of the Women in Franchising committee and a past member of the Franchise Council of Australia.
    Connect via: Twitter LinkedIn
    Tags: Business News Franchisee Franchisor

    latest news

    Bob Jane Corp Failure to Comply with Code

    May 01 2020
    The Franchising Code of Conduct requires that a franchisor advise a franchisee in writing at least 6 months before the end of the franchise term whether or not the franchisor intends to renew or extend the franchise agreement. A failure to com...

    Quick Question?

    Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation

    Brisbane Office Address: Clarence Chambers,
    Level 10, 239 George St,
    Brisbane QLD 4000

    Gold Coast Office Address: Wyndham Corporate Centre
    Level 9, 1 Corporate Court
    Bundall QLD 4217

    Central Post Office Box Address: P.O. Box 428
    Oxenford, QLD 4217