This is an interesting but complicated court case being heard before the Queensland Supreme Court. In this case Bright Horizons Australia Childcare Pty
Ltd (Bright Horizons) sought injunctions up until trial restraining Child Care Providers Pty Ltd (CCP) from interfering with
Bright Horizons’ possession of premises from which it runs childcare services in Ballarat and Wodonga, or interfering with the
operation of the childcare businesses. Interim injunctions were granted by the court on those terms in March 2017. This case extended the injunction until the matter goes to trial when the case will be heard in detail and a final judgment made by the court. The full judgment was delivered on 7 April 2017 and can be read here.
As I mentioned it is a very complicated case and you should read the full judgment to obtain an understanding of all of the issues involved. However, it basically involves a dispute between the two parties about which entity has rights to the premises and to operate the services. CCP currently has the approvals to operate the Ballarat and Wodonga services as the approved provider under the National Law. CCP argue, amongst a number of things, that it has a written lease with the landlord (which is a third party) and that Bright Horizons is only a licensee and they have revoked that licence for it to operate from the premises (which they were required to do to comply with the lease). Bright Horizons however contend that they have agreements with CCP to manage and purchase the services as well as being the equitable assignee of the lease. The outcome of the case is particularly important, in the National Law context, as service approvals are only valid for the specific premises stated on the approvals (see section 52(b))) and regulation 32 provides that it is a condition of service approval that the service continues to be entitled to occupy the education and care service premises.
A side issue that is revealed in the judgment is that the services are reasonably profitable; in the financial year ending 2015, the Wodonga service made a profit of around $200,000 and the Ballarat service made a profit of around $475,000.
As I mentioned it is a very complicated case and you should read the full judgment to obtain an understanding of all of the issues involved. However, it basically involves a dispute between the two parties about which entity has rights to the premises and to operate the services. CCP currently has the approvals to operate the Ballarat and Wodonga services as the approved provider under the National Law. CCP argue, amongst a number of things, that it has a written lease with the landlord (which is a third party) and that Bright Horizons is only a licensee and they have revoked that licence for it to operate from the premises (which they were required to do to comply with the lease). Bright Horizons however contend that they have agreements with CCP to manage and purchase the services as well as being the equitable assignee of the lease. The outcome of the case is particularly important, in the National Law context, as service approvals are only valid for the specific premises stated on the approvals (see section 52(b))) and regulation 32 provides that it is a condition of service approval that the service continues to be entitled to occupy the education and care service premises.
A side issue that is revealed in the judgment is that the services are reasonably profitable; in the financial year ending 2015, the Wodonga service made a profit of around $200,000 and the Ballarat service made a profit of around $475,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment