Detection Services Limited v Pickering - [2020] NZHC 2705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003135

[2020] NZHC 2705

BETWEEN
DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED

First Plaintiff

DETECTION SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

DETECTION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
Third Plaintiff

DETECTION SOLUTIONS PTY LIMITED
Fourth Plaintiff

STEPHEN CARL JOHN SIMMONS

Fifth Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTOPHER LORRAINE PICKERING

First Defendant

AQATAR LIMITED
Second Defendant

JAKE VAN DER PEYL

Third Defendant

Hearing: 21 September 2020

Appearances:

M Corlett QC and R Butler for the Plaintiffs

A Barker QC and J Grimmer for the Defendants

Judgment:

15 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[As to damages]

is judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 11:30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED v PICKERING [2020] NZHC 2705 [15 October 2020]

[1] By judgment dated 21 November 2019, the Court of Appeal remitted this proceeding back to this Court to determine the quantum of damages payable by the first and second defendants (together “the defendants”) to the third and fourth plaintiffs (together “the plaintiffs”) for losses caused by breaches of the defendants’ obligations under a joint venture with the plaintiffs.1 Liability is not an issue. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the defendants were at fault by failing to supply a leak detection system, which the parties had jointly developed, to the plaintiffs. As a result of the defendants’ failure, the plaintiffs had to develop their own system at some cost.

[2] The factual background is summarised in the Court of Appeal judgment as follows:

[2] Stephen Simmons, who lives in Sydney, is the founder of the Detection Services group of companies which specialises in detecting leaks in water pipes. The group comprises the two appellant companies, both based in Australia, and two related New Zealand companies, Detection Services Ltd and Detection Solutions Ltd. For convenience, we will refer to these companies collectively as “Detection Services”. Detection Services’ customers include various Australian water authorities responsible for public water supply.

[3] Christopher Pickering, who lives in Auckland, is the founder of the second respondent, Aqatar Ltd, a company incorporated in New Zealand in January 2010. Mr Pickering has expertise in computer software development.

[4] Mr Simmons and Mr Pickering were long-standing friends until they fell into dispute over ownership of a new computer-controlled leak detection system, which the High Court found was designed and built for Detection Services in a joint venture between the parties. The system was intended to be used by Detection Services to detect leaks in high-pressure water mains. In very general terms, the system was a refinement of existing technology involving the deployment of a hydrophone attached to the head of a cable into the main. As the hydrophone travels down the main with the water flow it transmits acoustic changes to the operator indicating the location of a leak. Mr Pickering proposed that the new system be controlled using a computer that would display and record the data collected. 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 Detection Services Limited v Pickering

Details

AGLC: Detection Services Limited v Pickering [2020] NZHC 2705
Case: [2020] NZHC 2705
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Detection Services Limited and others (collectively, the plaintiffs) sued Christopher Lorraine Pickering and others (collectively, the defendants) over a dispute about the ownership of a leak detection system. The parties had developed the system in a joint venture. The plaintiffs now sought to recover damages from the defendants for the losses caused by the defendants' failure to deliver the system. The plaintiffs claimed componentry costs of $187,577.27, labour costs of not less than $160,000, and loss of profits of $1,106,909 discounted by an unspecified percentage. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not proved the claimed losses, and that they had not suffered any losses over and above the amount they failed to pay to the defendants. The Court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to componentry costs of $117,350.59 and labour costs of $122,725, but no award for any loss of profits. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a total of $240,075.59. The Court also ordered that costs were to follow the event.

Orders