Burden v ESR Group (NZ) Ltd - [2019] NZHC 2745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-002775 CIV-2014-404-002456

[2019] NZHC 2745

UNDER THE Copyright Act 1994 and Fair Trading Act 1986

IN THE MATTER OF

Infringement of copyright and breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986

BETWEEN

IAN JAMES BURDEN

First Plaintiff

PGT-RECLAIMED (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

PLANTATION GROWN TIMBERS (VIETNAM) LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

AND

ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED

First Defendant

ELISA NORAH MCLENNAN

Second Defendant

Hearing: 25 October 2019

Appearances:

A H Brown QC and J R Wach for Plaintiffs J Miles QC and A Pietras for Defendants

Judgment:

29 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

On applications for leave to appeal

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2019 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………
Solicitors: James & Wells, Auckland
AJ Pietras & Co, Lower Hutt in 2456

Counsel: A Brown QC, Auckland
J Miles QC, Auckland in 2456

BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2745 [29 October 2019]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2019 the Court declined the application by the plaintiffs in CIV-2014-404-2456 (the 2014 proceedings) for leave to amend the third amended statement of claim in those proceedings and also declined the application by the defendants in CIV-2018-404-2775 (the 2018 proceedings) to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim against them in those proceedings.1

[2] The unsuccessful applicants in each case now seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[3] The relevant background facts are set out in the substantive judgment. It is unnecessary to repeat them.

The 2014 proceedings

[4] Although the application for leave in the 2014 proceedings is said to be advanced on a contingent basis and will only be pursued if the defendants’ application for leave to appeal in the 2018 proceedings is granted, it is convenient to deal with that application first as there is a short jurisdictional answer to it.

[5] While s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (SCA) provides leave is required to appeal to the Court of Appeal on any interlocutory decision or order, s 186 also confirms that transitional provisions apply. Schedule 5 and particularly cl 10 of that schedule apply. Clause 10 provides:

10 Proceedings, etc, continue under relevant Act

(1)All proceedings pending or in progress in a court operating under the relevant Act immediately before the commencement of this clause may be continued, completed, and enforced only under the relevant Act (including the relevant rules of court) as if that Act had not been repealed by this Act.

(2)All jurisdictions, offices, appointments, Orders in Council, orders, warrants, rules, regulations, seals, forms, books, records, instruments, and generally all acts of authority that originated under the relevant Act or another enactment continued or repealed by this Act, and that are subsisting or in force on the commencement of this clause, have

1 Burden v ESR Group (NZ) Ltd [2019] NZHC 1546.

full effect…

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 Burden v ESR Group (NZ) 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: [2019] NZHC 2745
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand delivered a judgment on applications for leave to appeal against the decisions declining applications for leave to amend a statement of claim and to strike out a claim. The plaintiffs, Ian James Burden, PGT-Reclaimed (International) Limited, and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited, sought leave to amend their statement of claim, while the defendants, ESR Group (NZ) Limited and Elisa Norah McLennan, sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their application to strike out the plaintiffs' claim. The court addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding the applicability of the Senior Courts Act 2016 and the Judicature Act 1908, concluding that the plaintiffs did not require leave to appeal the decision declining them leave to amend. The court then assessed the defendants' application for leave to appeal the dismissal of their application to strike out the plaintiffs' claim. The court considered the grounds for appeal, including whether the court failed to properly apply the "could and should" test, and the potential impact of the decision on the principles set out in Kim Dotcom v District Court at North Shore. The court found that it was arguable that the court may have erred in potentially confining the application of the Henderson v Henderson principle by overemphasising the plaintiffs' right to access the court. The court also considered the importance of the appeal to the applicant and the potential delay in the progress of the plaintiffs' claim. Ultimately, the court granted leave to the defendants to appeal the decision, finding that the interests of justice supported the grant of leave.

In light of the grant of leave to appeal, the court ordered that costs were to lie where they fell, as each party had effectively achieved what they sought to achieve. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering applications for leave to appeal and the factors that may warrant the grant of leave, including the potential impact of the decision on established legal principles and the interests of justice.

Orders