The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction compelling a hotel operator to continue managing and branding a hotel under a particular brand pending determination of a permanent injunction application.
They argued the lease required continued operation of the hotel using the brand and associated operational infrastructure despite expiry of the hotel management agreement.
The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and held that the lease provisions did not clearly impose an obligation requiring the operator to continue providing the full operational benefits of the brand.
The alleged harm, primarily reduced participation rent and potential reputational impacts, was found to be quantifiable and compensable in damages.
The balance of convenience favoured the operator, which would otherwise be compelled to operate a business relationship it no longer wished to maintain.
