Cassels v Tobeck - [2021] NZHC 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2019-409-700

[2021] NZHC 265

IN THE MATTER of interference with economic interests and conversion

BETWEEN AND

AND

AND AND

IAN BRACKEN CASSELS

First Plaintiff

THE WELLINGTON COMPANY LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

CONQUEROR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Third Plaintiff

TELTOWER LIMITED
Fourth Plaintiff

PIRM LIMITED
Fifth Plaintiff

AND

WAYNE COLIN TOBECK

First Defendant

continued…..2

Hearing: 16 February 2021

Appearances:

R Fowler QC and M R C Wolff for the Plaintiffs S Campbell and J Stringer for the Defendants

Judgment:

24 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 February 2021 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 24 February 2021

CASSELS v TOBECK [2021] NZHC 265 [24 February 2021]

BETWEEN AND

AND

AND

SIMON GRANT ROLLO

Second Defendant

ORTEGO LIMITED
Third Defendant

CORE CIVIL SOLUTIONS NZ LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

MORATH NZ LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

[1] The defendants have applied for further and better particulars of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim dated 29 September 2020.

[2] A schedule of particulars was annexed to the application and that schedule runs to just over 90 pages. Discovery has not been completed.

Summary of claim

[3] At its most basic, the plaintiffs’ claim arises from a breakdown in the commercial relationship between the parties. The plaintiffs say the defendants had been responsible for managing businesses or developing property for them in Christchurch, including establishing information systems and project management. The plaintiffs say that upon the business relationship breaking down, the defendants deleted records relating to the plaintiffs, giving rise to a claim in conversion in respect of the missing information. This is the first cause of action.

[4] The second cause of action is a claim that the defendants embarked on a course of action deliberately intended to undermine the plaintiffs’ economic interests and/or their contractual relationships. Broadly speaking, the plaintiffs claim the defendants did so through maligning the plaintiffs with third parties or interfering with the plaintiffs’ completion of the Christchurch development project by communicating with the plaintiffs’ contractors. The conduct pleaded is said to give rise to a claim in tort for interference with business relationships.

Substance of pleading criticisms

[5] There are five plaintiffs named in the proceeding and five defendants. In the two causes of action pleaded, relief is sought by all plaintiffs against all defendants.

[6] The defendants say it is impermissible for the plaintiffs to be pooled and to in effect advance their claims as one plaintiff. The defendants say in order for the plaintiffs to maintain their conversion pleading, it must be possible for the plaintiffs to identify the individual or entity that owned the particular item of property said to have been converted and, if jointly owned, then such can be pleaded. In short, a conversion must identify the owner of the property said to have been converted.

[7] In respect of the economic tort claim, the…

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 Cassels v Tobeck

Details

AGLC: Cassels v Tobeck [2021] NZHC 265
Case: [2021] NZHC 265
Decision Date: 24 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cassels v Tobeck is a case involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants, primarily concerning allegations of interference with economic interests and conversion. The plaintiffs, including Ian Bracken Cassels and others, claim that the defendants, Wayne Colin Tobeck and others, managed their businesses and property developments in Christchurch but subsequently deleted records related to the plaintiffs. This led to claims of conversion and interference with business relationships. The defendants applied for further and better particulars of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim, which was dismissed by the court. The plaintiffs argued that they intended to replead after the discovery process was completed. The court agreed that requiring the plaintiffs to address the particulars immediately would be inefficient, as they could likely particularise some areas from their own knowledge. The court ordered that general discovery would proceed, with document exchange and inspection to be completed within six months. The plaintiffs were to replead within one month of the completion of discovery.

The key legal issues in this case revolved around the sufficiency and timing of the plaintiffs’ pleadings, particularly in light of the defendants' requests for further particulars. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' claims were improperly pooled and that specific details regarding ownership and contracts were necessary. The court acknowledged the merits of some of these points but concluded that the application for particulars was premature. The court reasoned that it was more efficient for the plaintiffs to complete the discovery process before addressing the particulars, as some information might already be within their knowledge. The court also noted that the plaintiffs acknowledged the need to revise their pleadings. The formal dismissal of the application for particulars was contingent on the plaintiffs' recognition of the need to amend their pleadings and the defendants' ability to challenge the amended pleadings if they deemed it deficient.

The court's judgment dismissed the application for further and better particulars, with an order for general discovery to proceed first. The plaintiffs were to replead after the discovery process. The court reserved the issue of costs relating to the application for particulars and allowed either party to seek a telephone conference to discuss further issues, such as an independent forensic review of the defendants' computer equipment.

Orders