Agam v Moon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2341

[2024] NZHC 3916

BETWEEN
AVRAHAM YAACOV AGAM

Plaintiff

AND

JONATHAN ANDREW MOON

First Defendant

OUTER ASPECT IP LIMITED

Second Defendant

Telephone Conference: 18 December 2024

Counsel:

KT Glover and T Mahood for Plaintiff F Geiringer for Defendants

Minute:

18 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2024 at 4.00pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hudson Gavin Martin, Auckland LeeSalmonLong, Auckland

K Glover, Shortland Chambers, Auckland
F Geiringer, Lambton Chambers, Wellington

AGAM v MOON & ANOR [2024] NZHC 3916 [18 December 2024]

[1]I issued my judgment in this matter earlier today, 18 December 2024.

[2] After having reviewed the decision, the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal. There is no formal application, but given the approaching Christmas shutdown period, I am prepared to deal with the matter orally. The application was made in a telephone conference.

[3]Mr Geiringer, for the defendants, does not oppose.

[4]Leave to appeal is required pursuant to s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[5] I grant leave to appeal. I do so because the consequences to each party flowing from the interim injunction are very significant, as set out in my decision. There is also considerable time pressure given the impending shutdown period.

[6] The payment of NZD 2 million securing Mr Agam’s undertaking as to damages expires at 5.00 pm on 17 January 2025, at which point if payment if not received, the interim injunction expires.

Becroft J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Avraham Yaacov Agam, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Jonathan Andrew Moon, the first defendant, and Outer Aspect IP Limited, the second defendant, in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The case revolves around an interim injunction, and the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal the decision made on 18 December 2024. The plaintiff's counsel, KT Glover and T Mahood, argued for the appeal, while F Geiringer represented the defendants.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to appeal the decision on the interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to challenge the injunction, arguing that its consequences were significant and warranted an appeal. The defendants did not oppose the application for leave to appeal, and the court considered the urgency of the matter due to the impending shutdown period, which would limit the time available for the appeal process.

Becroft J granted the plaintiff leave to appeal, recognizing the substantial consequences of the interim injunction for both parties and the time constraints imposed by the shutdown period. The court noted that the payment securing the undertaking as to damages would expire on 17 January 2025, and if not received, the interim injunction would lapse. The decision to grant leave to appeal was made to ensure that the plaintiff could adequately challenge the injunction before it expired, given the significant implications of the injunction's continuation or termination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Telephone Conference:	18 December 2024
Counsel:	KT Glover and T Mahood for Plaintiff F Geiringer for Defendants
Minute:	18 December 2024