Cherry v Police - [2012] NZHC 1125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2010-404-003178 [2012] NZHC 1025

BETWEEN PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDMALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Defendant

ANDANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN Second Defendant

ANDCT NZ LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARTAN GLOBAL LIMITED)
Third Defendant

ANDPARNELL PARTNERS GROUP LIMITED Fourth Defendant

ANDSPORTS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED Fifth Defendant

ANDPARNELL PARTNERS GROUP (NZ) LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

ANDCARTAN GLOBAL LLP Seventh Defendant

ANDCARTAN TOURS INC Eighth Defendant

ANDSPORTSMARK MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED
Ninth Defendant

CIV 2011-404-000474

AND BETWEEN ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN First Plaintiff

ANDANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN JENNIFER ANNE REGAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE PICCADILLY TRUST
Second Plaintiffs

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED V BEATTIE & ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-003178 [15 May 2012]

ANDROBERT GILL First Defendant

ANDPREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED Second Defendant

ANDBA PARTNERS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Third Defendant

ANDDIGITAL PARTNERS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Fourth Defendant

ANDCPG YORK LIMITED Fifth Defendant

ANDBRAND ADVANTAGE MEASUREMENT AND CONSULTING LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

ANDDIGITAL PARTNERS (NZ) LIMITED Seventh Defendant

Hearing: 16 April 2012

Counsel: Z Kennedy and M Pascariu for the Plaintiff in the First Proceeding J Eichelbaum for the First to Seventh Defendants in the First Proceeding
No Appearance for the Eighth and Ninth Defendants in the First
Proceeding
J Eichelbaum for the First and Second Plaintiffs in the Second
Proceeding
Z Kennedy and M Pascariu for the Defendants in the Second
Proceeding

Judgment: 15 May 2012

[RESERVED] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie
On 15 May 2012 at 4.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date

INDEX

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4

B. Proceedings CIV 2010-404-003178 ................................................................. 7

Discovery — existing orders. ........................................................................... 7

The first to seventh defendants’ application to vary the discovery orders
made on 23 November 2010 — application (g). .............................................11

PEG’s application for enforcement of discovery orders against the first to
seventh defendants — application (a). ........................................................... 15

The first to seventh defendants’ application for particular discovery —
application (e). ............................................................................................... 23

PEG’s application to discontinue the proceedings against the ninth
defendant and for non-party discovery — application (c)(i) and (ii). ........... 28

The first to seventh defendants’ application to add the Robert Gill Trust
as a counterclaim defendant — application (d). ............................................ 30

The first to seventh defendants’ application to file a fourth amended
statement of defence and counterclaim — application f(ii)............................ 30

C. Proceedings CIV 2011-404-000474 ............................................................... 34

The first to seventh defendants’ application to add Brand Advantage
Limited as a party to the proceedings — application (h). .............................. 34

D. General ........................................................................................................... 34

A. Introduction

[1] On 27 May 2010, Premier Events Group Limited (“PEG”) issued proceedings under number CIV 2010-404-003178 against Messrs Beattie and Regan, and various companies with which they are associated. PEG says that it was a specialist provider of travel and hospitality services for major sporting events worldwide. It alleges that Messrs Beattie and Regan were both directors of the company, that they resigned from PEG, and that they left taking with them its…

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 Cherry v Police

Details

AGLC: Cherry v Police [2012] NZHC 1125
Case: [2012] NZHC 1125
Decision Date: 24 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves proceedings brought by Premier Events Group Limited (PEG) against Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan and various companies associated with them (the defendants). PEG, a specialist provider of travel and hospitality services, alleges that Beattie and Regan breached fiduciary obligations, misused confidential information, and conspired to injure its business by unlawful means. The defendants have counterclaimed against PEG and its director, Robert Gill. The case involves multiple interlocutory applications, including discovery, enforcement, and costs. PEG sought enforcement of discovery orders, claiming the defendants had failed to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court found that the defendants had indeed breached the discovery orders and made additional discovery orders. The Court declined to make an unless order, but warned that further breaches would result in severe consequences, including the striking out of the defendants’ statement of defence. The Court also declined various applications made by the defendants, including an application to vary discovery orders, an application for particular discovery, and an application to add the Robert Gill Trust as a counterclaim defendant. The Court found that the Trust was not a necessary party to the proceedings, and that there was no tenable cause of action against it. The Court made several costs orders in favour of PEG and against the defendants. The Court also granted PEG leave to discontinue proceedings against one of the defendants, Sportsmark Management Group Limited, and ordered non-party discovery against it. The Court invited counsel to discuss a timetable to manage the proceedings through to a fixture date.

Orders