Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd - [2011] NZCA 635

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA508/2011
[2011] NZCA 635

BETWEEN MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE
First Applicant

AND ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN
Second Applicant

AND CT NZ LTD
Third Applicant

AND PARNELL PARTNERS GROUP LTD
Fourth Applicant

AND SPORTS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD
Fifth Applicant

AND PARNELL PARTNERS GROUP (NZ) LTD
Sixth Applicant

AND CARTAN GLOBAL LLP
Seventh Applicant

AND PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LTD
Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2011

Court: Glazebrook, Arnold and Ellen France JJ

Counsel: J Eichelbaum for Applicants
M D Pascariu for Respondents

Judgment: 9 December 2011 at 1 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to amend the application for extension of time for filing the notice to appeal is granted.

BThe application for an extension of time is granted subject to the conditions set out in [20] of the reasons of the Court.
CThe application for leave to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed.
DCosts are reserved.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

The applicants seek an extension of time for filing an appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. They wish to appeal against the decision of Wylie J that the respondent, Premier Events Group Limited (PEG), was entitled to serve the proceedings on two overseas companies (Cartan Tours Inc (Cartan Tours) and Sportsmark Management Group Ltd (Sportsmark)) without leave under r 6.27 of the High Court Rules.[1] The applicants also seek leave to amend their application for an extension of time and to adduce new evidence (under rr 19 and 45 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules respectively). The applications for an extension of time and for leave to amend are opposed. The respondent abides the decision of the Court on the application to adduce new evidence.

Background

[1] Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3178, 24 June 2011.

In May 2010, PEG issued proceedings against two of its former directors, the first and second applicants, Messrs Beattie and Regan, and against various corporate interests established by Messrs Beattie and Regan.
We do not need to set out the detail of the proceedings. At this point it is sufficient to say that PEG’s business involved providing travel and hospitality services for major sporting events worldwide. PEG’s claim relates to contracts it said it had secured or was close to securing in relation to the 2011 Rugby World Cup and 2012 Olympics. There are allegations of breach of fiduciary obligations by Messrs Beattie and Regan in relation to these contracts or contractual negotiations.
Some time after the proceedings were filed, PEG sought to have service effected overseas on Cartan Tours and Sportsmark. On 7 March 2011, PEG filed an application pursuant to r 6.27 seeking joinder of Cartan Tours and Sportsmark or, alternatively, seeking leave pursuant to r 6.28 to serve out of New Zealand the amended statement of claim on Cartan Tours and Sportsmark. The application was opposed by the present applicants.
We note here that r 6.27 sets out the situations in…

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.

Continue reading Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Premier Events Group Ltd [2011] NZCA 635
Case: [2011] NZCA 635
Decision Date: 9 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from several applicants against Premier Events Group Limited (PEG). The applicants sought an extension of time for filing an appeal against the decision of Wylie J, which allowed PEG to serve proceedings on two overseas companies without leave under r 6.27 of the High Court Rules. The applicants also sought leave to amend their application and to adduce new evidence. The applications for an extension of time and for leave to amend were opposed, while the respondent abided the decision on the application to adduce new evidence.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the extension of time to file an appeal was in the interests of justice. The court considered the length of delay, reasons for the delay, the extent of prejudice caused by the delay, the prospective merits of the appeal, and the parties' conduct. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to grant leave to amend the application for an extension of time and to adduce new evidence.

In its judgment, the court found that the interests of justice supported granting an extension of time, despite the inadequate explanation for the delay and the applicants' failure to raise some of the points earlier. The court granted leave to amend the application for an extension of time but dismissed the application to adduce new evidence. The extension of time was granted subject to certain conditions, including filing a notice of appeal, paying the filing fee, dealing with security for costs, applying for the allocation of a hearing date, and filing a case on appeal. The costs were reserved.

In summary, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand granted the applicants an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of Wylie J, subject to certain conditions. The court also granted leave to amend the application for an extension of time but dismissed the application to adduce new evidence. The costs were reserved.

Orders