Detection Services Limited v Pickering - [2018] NZHC 1617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-404-003135

[2018] NZHC 1617

BETWEEN
DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED

First Plaintiff

AND

DETECTION SOLUTIONS LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

DETECTION SERVICES PTY LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

AND

DETECTION SOLUTIONS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

STEPHEN CARL JOHN SIMMONS

Fifth Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTOPHER LORRAINE PICKERING

First Defendant continued over/…

Hearing: 2 July 2018

Counsel:

M Corlett QC for the Plaintiffs

A Barker QC for the First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

3 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW

This judgment was delivered by me on
03.07.18 at 3:30pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Dukesons Business Law Langton Hudson Butcher Counsel:
M Corlett QC A Barker QC

DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED & ORS v C L PICKERING & ORS [2018] NZHC 1617 [3 July 2018]

AND
AQATAR LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

JAKE VAN DER PEYL

Third Defendant

Introduction

[1] The parties have made applications for further and better discovery, including orders setting aside claims to confidentiality. However, at the hearing on Monday, 2 July 2018 draft consent orders were filed establishing that virtually all issues between the parties pertaining to discovery have been resolved. The only outstanding issues are those related to confidentiality. They are addressed in this judgment.

[2] By consent and in accordance with my conclusions on confidentiality, I make the orders set out at paragraph [30] below.

The claims to confidentiality

[3]The plaintiffs claim confidentiality in relation to four categories of documents:

(a)Financial reports for the plaintiffs from 2012 to 2016;

(b)Plans and other information relating to the new alternative system developed by the plaintiffs;

(c)More general correspondence (including emails) relating to the development of the new DPX system; and

(d)Contracts, correspondence and tender documents relating to Sydney water, Melbourne Water, City West Water, Yarra Valley Water, Central Highland Water and Tyco.

[4] The defendants claim confidentiality in relation to one category of documents, namely the wiring diagrams which Mr Pickering, the first defendant, addresses at paragraphs 60 to 64 of his affidavit of 6 June 2018.

Factual background

[5] The relevant facts are set out in the judgment of Associate Judge Doogue dated 12 April 2017. That judgment1 dealt with the application for a separate trial.

Relevant legal principles on the issue of confidentiality

[6] Challenges to claims of confidentiality are dealt with in Rule 8.25. A proper evidential foundation should be laid for a claim of confidentiality in respect of each document alleged to be confidential.2 This is inherent in terms of Rule 8.15(2)(f).

[7] As Mr Barker QC submitted, the starting point is that a party is entitled to know the case against him. It is not usual for a party to be denied access to documents that form the case against them. It is an exception that should be justified.3
There is nothing I can discern in either the Immigration Act 1964 or the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 which suggests a…

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 [2018] NZHC 1617
Case: [2018] NZHC 1617
Decision Date: 3 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Detection Services Limited and other plaintiffs suing Christopher Lorraine Pickering and other defendants over issues related to the development and misappropriation of a leak detection system. The High Court of New Zealand was required to decide on the validity of claims of confidentiality regarding certain categories of documents produced during the litigation. The plaintiffs claimed confidentiality over four categories of documents, while the defendants claimed confidentiality over wiring diagrams. The court held that none of the claims to confidentiality were justified. The court emphasized that a party is generally entitled to know the case against them, and that claims of confidentiality should only be upheld when there is a significant risk of prejudice to the party in question. The court found that the plaintiffs' financial reports, development plans, and correspondence were critical to understanding the claims and defenses, and that there was no significant risk of prejudice if these documents were disclosed. The court also rejected the defendants' claim of confidentiality over wiring diagrams, noting that there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiffs would misuse the documents for collateral purposes. The court made orders requiring the plaintiffs and defendants to disclose the specified documents by a certain date and clarified that the disclosed documents could only be used for the purposes of the litigation. The court further emphasized that any misuse of the disclosed documents for collateral purposes would be treated as contempt of court.

Orders