CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK AND CALLAGHAN INNOVATION - [2025] NZCA 148

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA801/2024
[2025] NZCA 148

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK Applicant
AND	CALLAGHAN INNOVATION Respondent

Court:	French P and Cooke J
Counsel:	Applicant in person C R Langstone for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	7 May 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal under s 60 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 is declined.
BThe applicant must pay costs to the respondent calculated on the basis of a standard appeal with a 30 per cent uplift together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French P)

Introduction

Mr Hook brought a negligence claim in the District Court against Callaghan Innovation (Callaghan). Judge Kelly struck out the proceeding on the ground that it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action.[1] Mr Hook appealed that decision to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal,[2] and declined to grant Mr Hook leave to bring a second appeal in this Court.[3]
[1]Surface Micro-Guard Ltd v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZDC 7314.
[2]Hook v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZHC 2240 [judgment under appeal].
[3]Hook v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZHC 3432.
Having failed to obtain the necessary leave from the High Court, Mr Hook now seeks leave from this Court. The respondent opposes the application.

Background

Proceedings against Cross Slot IP and its directors

The background to the application dates back to five separate proceedings initiated by Mr Hook in the District Court against a company called Cross Slot IP Ltd (Cross Slot IP) and its directors. The dispute centred on a 2019 heads of agreement between Cross Slot IP and a company controlled by Mr Hook called Surface Micro-Guard Ltd (Surface).
Under the heads of agreement, a new entity, Cross Slot Europe Ltd (Cross Slot Europe), was established. Cross Slot Europe was licensed to manufacture and distribute technologies and agricultural machinery designed and manufactured by Cross Slot IP. Cross Slot Europe was operated by Mr Hook.
In March 2021, Cross Slot IP cancelled Cross Slot Europe’s licence on the grounds that it was using its access to Cross Slot IP’s intellectual property for unauthorised purposes and had thus repudiated the heads of agreement. This was denied by Mr Hook, who contended that the cancellation was unlawful and that it was Cross Slot IP which had repudiated the agreement.
The five sets of proceedings were initiated by Mr Hook using different entities as plaintiff.[4] As each proceeding was struck out for non-payment of security for costs the next one was initiated. Two of the strike-out decisions were unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court.
[4]The first proceeding was brought by Cross Slot Europe against Cross Slot IP. Cross Slot IP successfully applied for security for costs against Cross Slot Europe and a stay of proceedings until that security was paid. It was not paid and, instead of paying the security or appealing the decision in which it was ordered, Mr…

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 CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK AND CALLAGHAN INNOVATION 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: [2025] NZCA 148
Decision Date: 7 May 2025 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Christopher Russell Hook, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court, which had dismissed his appeal from the District Court's decision to strike out his negligence claim against Callaghan Innovation. The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether Mr Hook's application for leave to appeal met the criteria for such leave under the Senior Courts Act 2016. Specifically, the Court needed to assess if the appeal raised a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument involving interests of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not satisfy the criteria for leave. The allegations of bias and misconduct had been thoroughly considered and rejected by the High Court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower Courts' findings that the claim against Callaghan Innovation was not reasonably arguable as it lacked a duty of care and was essentially an attempt to circumvent the ban on bringing proceedings against Cross Slot IP. The Court also noted that the extensive affidavit evidence provided by Mr Hook did not change the established principles of negligence law. Consequently, the application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined. The Court ordered that Mr Hook pay the respondent's costs, calculated on the basis of a standard appeal with a 30 per cent uplift together with usual disbursements.

Orders