Cloud House Limited v Bulletproof Group Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-1453

[2018] NZHC 1450

BETWEEN

CLOUD HOUSE LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

BULLETPROOF GROUP LIMITED

First Defendant

BULLETPROOF NETWORKS PTY LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 8 June 2018

Appearances:

J E M Lethbridge for the Plaintiff

T M Pasley and T J Lindsay for the Defendants

Judgment:

15 June 2018


JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH


This judgment was delivered by Associate Judge Smith on 15 June 2018 at 4.30pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: 15 June 2018

Solicitors / Counsel:

Lowndes Ltd, Wellington Lindsay LA, Auckland

Case Officer: Isabella Wilson

CLOUD HOUSE LTD v BULLETPROOF GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 1450 [15 June 2018]

[1]                 The defendants apply for security for their costs in this claim, in which the plaintiff (Cloud) seeks damages of approximately $3.9 million arising out of a contract entered into between the parties (the deed).

[2]                 The second defendant (Networks) has filed a counterclaim, in which it seeks to recover the amount of $1 million paid by it under the deed, together with

$127,061.65 as its costs of negotiating and executing the deed.

Background

[3]                 Cloud formerly operated a cloud computing services business in New Zealand. The first defendant (Bulletproof) has been a leading cloud services provider in Australia. Until recently, it was listed on the ASX. Networks is a subsidiary of Bulletproof.

[4]                 In mid-2015 Bulletproof began looking to enter the New Zealand market. It decided the best way to do that would be to acquire a successful existing New Zealand cloud services provider.

[5]                 Mr Woodward,  Bulletproof's  chief  executive,   began   negotiating   with  Mr Jordan Greig and Mr Scott Judson, the directors of Cloud. Messrs Greig and Judson were then the major shareholders in Cloud, each holding 46.3 per cent of the Cloud shares.

[6]                 The parties entered into the deed on 31 January 2016. Under the deed, Networks agreed to acquire the business assets of Cloud (the Business). Networks would begin trading in New Zealand under the "Bulletproof" brand.

[7]                 The consideration for the purchase was an initial $1 million, payable on settlement, together with further contingent sums that would be dependent on Networks' Services Revenue for the period from completion to 30 June 2017.

[8]                 If earned, there were to be three contingent payments, referred to as "earn-out" payments. The first earn-out payment would be payable on 30 June 2016, the second on 31 December 2016, and the third on 30 June 2017. The maximum Cloud could

potentially have been entitled to by way of earn-out payments, was NZ$4,200,000, split between cash and Bulletproof shares.

[9]                 Networks paid the $1 million, and settlement was effected, on 15 February 2016. In accordance with arrangements made between the parties, Messrs Greig and Judson moved over to Networks and became part of the Bulletproof (New Zealand) management team.

[10]              The defendants did not make any earn-out payments. Mr Woodward says that was because the Business…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cloud House Limited v Bulletproof Group Limited 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
[2018] NZHC 1450
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendants, Bulletproof Group Limited and Bulletproof Networks Pty Limited, applied for security for their costs against the plaintiff, Cloud House Limited. Cloud, a cloud computing services business, had entered into a contract with the defendants for the sale of its business assets, but the defendants had not made the earn-out payments. Cloud claimed damages of approximately $3.9 million due to alleged misrepresentations and breaches of warranties by the defendants. The defendants sought security for their costs on a Category 2, Band B, basis, calculating 2B costs for a three-week trial at $66,900 and an additional $80,000 for expert witness fees. The defendants argued that Cloud had insufficient assets to meet their costs and there was a serious risk that they would be unable to recover any contribution to their costs if they successfully defended Cloud's claims. Cloud opposed the application, stating that there was no reason to believe it would not be able to pay the defendants' costs if they were successful at trial. Associate Judge Smith found that the defendants had satisfied the threshold test of showing that there was reason to believe Cloud would be unable to pay their costs if unsuccessful at trial. The judge concluded that it was just in all the circumstances to order Cloud to provide further security for the defendants' costs, and directed Cloud to provide further security in the total sum of $60,000, in two equal tranches. The judge also reserved leave to the defendants to apply for a stay of the proceeding and/or an adjournment of the trial in the event of Cloud failing to provide either tranche of the further security.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.