[2] On appeal the Full Federal Court considered that the primary judge's approach gave insufficient weight to the possibility of lawful termination.

It concluded that despite the respondent's conduct; the agreement would have been lawfully terminated on 30 June 2008, dis-entitling the appellant to damages for lack of a causal link between the breach and the harm suffered.

- Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ[5]Ultimately however, this matter did not determine the case, as the majority found Secure had not proven there was a real possibility it would have otherwise terminated the agency agreement.

The court cited Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd,[8] as authority for the proposition that one must not assume a wrongdoer would cut off legal obligations to the claimant; if greater losses would have occurred due to the extraneous circumstances (such as the need to maintain their reputation).

[1] The justices agreed with the orders proposed by the majority, however suggested that the case ought to have been decided on narrower grounds; relating to the manner in which the respondent had set out its pleadings.

The evidence of Mr Brown was 'thoroughly disbelieved' by the trial judge, and the consequent rejection of the respondent's pleaded defence 'ought to have been the end of the issue'.