Legal Research
Cases
Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd

Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 16 May 2014 23 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA773/2013
[2014] NZCA 184

BETWEEN

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE
First Appellant

ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN
Second Appellant

CT NZ GROUP LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARTAN GLOBAL LIMITED)
Third Appellant

PARNELL PARTNERS GROUP LIMITED
Fourth Appellant

CARTAN GLOBAL LLP
Fifth Appellant

AND

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED
Respondent

Hearing:	12 March 2014 (further submissions received 17 March 2014)
Court:	Ellen France, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	J R Eichelbaum for Appellants Z G Kennedy and M D Pascariu for Respondent
Judgment:	16 May 2014 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellants must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Introduction

The appellants appeal against a judgment of Ellis J delivered on 22 October 2013, in which she declined their application to strike out claims brought against them by the respondent in the High Court, on the basis that they are an abuse of process.[1]
[1]Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [2013] NZHC 2755.
Abuse of process was asserted on the basis that the claims advanced in the High Court had the same factual setting as is relied on in separate proceedings on foot in the Employment Court. The appellants claim that the same damages are sought, in the same amount, and that the claims are made by and against the same parties or their privies. The key contention is that the appellants are wrongly being vexed twice on the same facts. Mr Eichelbaum for the appellants contends that to allow the High Court proceeding to continue would be wrong in principle and contrary to authority. As part of his argument he relies on the fact that the Employment Court conducted a hearing on liability issues in May 2012.
The respondent disagrees and says that Ellis J’s judgment was correct. The principal issue for determination on appeal is whether the Judge erred in determining that the High Court proceeding was not an abuse of process, having regard to the claims made in the Employment Court.
In order to put the rival arguments in context we will summarise the claims made in the Employment Court and High Court proceedings. We will then explain the reasons given by Ellis J for rejecting the appellants’ application, before turning to the substance of the argument.

Background facts

The parties accept that the relevant background facts were correctly set out in the High Court judgment and the following summary is based on what Ellis J found.
Premier Events Group Ltd (PEG) and BA Partners Ltd (BAP) are associated companies forming part of the Brand Advantage and Premier Group of companies (the Group). All the companies in the Group were controlled by Mr Robert Gill, and involved in the media, advertising, brand development and marketing industries. Prior to 2010 Mr Gill ran the Group. Ellis J found that he did so “effectively in partnership” with Mr Regan…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZCA 184
Decision Date: 16 May 2014 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the appellants, Beattie, Regan, and several companies associated with them, against a decision of Ellis J, who had declined to strike out claims brought against them by the respondent, Premier Events Group Limited (PEG). The appellants argued that the claims brought in the High Court were an abuse of process because they had the same factual setting as claims made in separate proceedings in the Employment Court, and that the same damages were sought in the same amount by and against the same parties or their privies. The Court of Appeal held that the separate jurisdiction of the Employment Court justified a departure from the rule that a defendant cannot be vexed twice for the same cause of action. Given the statutory context and the creation of an exclusive Employment Court jurisdiction, a party who has claims within the jurisdiction of that Court as well as claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court will not, in the Court of Appeal's view, abuse the process of either Court by commencing an appropriate claim in each. The Court of Appeal held that there was no deliberate or inadvertent attempt to circumvent the rules of res judicata. The fact that there were existing claims in the Employment Court did not make the commencement of a proceeding in the High Court an abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders