Brio Beverages (B.C.) Inc. v. Koala Beverages Ltd., (1998) 114 B.C.A.C. 247 (CA)

• Judge: Finch, Newbury and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 26, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 114 B.C.A.C. 247 (CA)

Brio Beverages v. Koala Beverages (1998), 114 B.C.A.C. 247 (CA);

   186 W.A.C. 247

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.034

Brio Beverages (B.C.) Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Koala Beverages Limited (defendant/respondent)

(CA023168)

Indexed As: Brio Beverages (B.C.) Inc. v. Koala Beverages Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, Newbury and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

November 20, 1998.

Summary:

Pursuant to a 1996 distributorship agree­ment, Koala agreed to distribute and market FBI's products exclusively in Western Canada. FBI purported to assign its rights under the agreement to Brio. Brio sued to collect an alleged debt from Koala. Koala applied under rule 18(6) for summary dis­missal of the action. A Chambers judge allowed the application. Brio appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Contracts - Topic 6842

Assignment - Prohibition against - Effect of - A distributorship agreement prohibited either party from assigning its rights there­under - The agreement said "... neither party shall, without the prior written con­sent of the other (which consent may be arbitrarily withheld) transfer the whole or any part of this agreement or any of its interest, rights or obligations thereunder ..." - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that (1) the prohibition extended to the "fruits of the contract", i.e., debts accrued to the assignor under the agree­ment at the time of the purported assign­ment, (2) the clause was intended to pro­hibit both legal (statutory) and equitable assignments, (3) the clause was not void as against public policy and (4) the assignor should not be added as a plaintiff in the assignee's debt action - See paragraphs 5 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

Helstan Securities Ltd. v. Hertfordshire County Council, [1978] 3 All E.R. 262 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Linden Gardens Trusts Ltd. v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. et al.; St. Martin's Property Corp. et al. v. McAlpine (Sir Robert) & Sons Ltd., [1993] 3 All E.R. 417; 161 N.R. 208 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

Case v. Edmonton Country Club Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 534; 1 N.R. 563, consd. [para. 10].

Canadian American Financial Corp. (Canada) Ltd. v. King and Douglas W. King Marketing Co. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Esso Petroleum Co. v. Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd., [1968] A.C. 269 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, sect. 10 [para. 3]; sect. 36 [para. 7].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 5(9), rule 15(5) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Goode, R.M., Inalienable Rights?, Case Comment on Helstan Securities Ltd. v. Hertfordshire County Council (1979), 42 M.L.R. 553 [para. 16].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vols. 6, paras. 9, 90 [para. 7]; 35, para. 1269 [para. 8].

Marshall, O.R., The Assignment of Choses in Action (1950), ch. II, generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Rose-Mary L. Basham, Q.C., and Lisa M. Slater, for the appellant;

Gordon G. Plottel, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Finch, Newbury and Proudfoot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 26, 1998. The decision of the court was delivered on November 20, 1998 by Newbury, J.A.