Legal Research
Cases
Diver v Loktronic Industries Ltd

Diver v Loktronic Industries Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 4 April 2012 67 min read

Contents

On this page

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA258/2011
[2012] NZCA 131

BETWEEN STEPHEN JOHN DIVER
Appellant

AND LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
First Respondent

AND SDR LIMITED
Second Respondent

AND ROY BOWYER
Third Respondent

AND TRIMEC TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

AND NEIL RICHARD HINGSTON
Fifth Respondent

AND NEIL HINGSTON ENGINEERING LIMITED
Sixth Respondent

AND ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Seventh Respondent

CA259/2011

AND BETWEEN NEIL RICHARD HINGSTON
First Appellant

AND NEIL HINGSTON ENGINEERING LIMITED
Second Appellant

AND LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Respondent

CA260/2011

AND BETWEEN ROY BOWYER
First Appellant

AND TRIMEC TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED
Second Appellant

AND ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Third Appellant

AND LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
First Respondent

AND STEPHEN JOHN DIVER
Second Respondent

AND SDR LIMITED
Third Respondent

AND NEIL RICHARD HINGSTON
Fourth Respondent

AND NEIL HINGSTON ENGINEERING LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

Hearing: 25-27 October 2011

Court: Arnold, Ellen France and Stevens JJ

Counsel: M H L Morrison and K D Puddle for Mr Diver
S A Grant and K J Dawson for Loktronic Industries Ltd
P L Rice and B P Molloy for Mr Hingston
Z G Kennedy and P D M Johns for Mr Bowyer, Trimec Technology Pty Ltd and Assa Abloy New Zealand Ltd

Judgment: 4 April 2012 at 10 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ATHE APPEALS BY STEPHEN DIVER (CA258/2011), BY NEIL HINGSTON (CA259/2011) AND BY ROY BOWYER, TRIMEC TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED AND ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (CA260/2011) AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF LIABILITY FOR THE VARIOUS TORTS ARE ALLOWED. THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED IN THE SUM OF $1,420,721 PLUS INTEREST IS SET ASIDE.
BNeil Hingston Engineeering Limited’s appeal, (CA259/2011), against the finding that the manufacturing contract was exclusive, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

C The cross-appeal is dismissed.

DLoktronic Industries Limited must pay Stephen Diver, Neil Hingston, Roy Bowyer, Trimec Technology Pty Limited and Assa Abloy New Zealand Limited costs on a band A basis for a complex appeal. We certify for second counsel.
ECosts in relation to the appeal by Neil Hingston Engineering Limited lie where they fall.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No
The appeals  [1]
Factual background to the intentional torts  [9]
The High Court decision  [20]
         Inducing breaches of contract  [23]
         Interference by unlawful means  [25]
The issues on appeal  [28]
Inducing breach of the manufacturing contract (Loktronic and
NHEL)  [29]
         The test for knowledge and intention  [33]
         Drawing the threads together  [47]
         Mr Hingston  [51]
         Mr Diver  [66]
         Mr Bowyer and Trimec  [78]
         Assa Abloy NZ Limited (AANZL)  [88]
Inducing breach of the distribution contract between Loktronic
and Trimec  [93]
         Mr Bowyer  [95]
         AANZL  [99]
Interference in business by unlawful means  [100]
         Misrepresentations  [106]
         Inducing breach of the effeff contract  [127]
Conspiracy to interfere with the manufacturing contract by
unlawful means  [132]
Other matters  [133]
Disposition  [135]

The appeals

For a number of years prior to 2002, Loktronic Industries Ltd (Loktronic), ran a profitable business…

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 Diver v Loktronic Industries Ltd 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: [2012] NZCA 131
Decision Date: 4 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns claims by Loktronic Industries Ltd against the other parties in relation to losses suffered by Loktronic following the end of its relationships with NHEL and Trimec. Loktronic had a longstanding business relationship with NHEL whereby NHEL manufactured a bolt for Loktronic and with Trimec whereby Trimec was Loktronic’s exclusive New Zealand distributor of Trimec products. Loktronic brought claims for inducing breaches of the manufacturing and distribution contracts, interference by unlawful means, and conspiracy. The High Court found in favour of Loktronic and awarded damages of $1,420,721 plus interest. The appellants, other than NHEL, appealed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to show they knew their conduct would induce a breach of the manufacturing contract or the distribution contract. They also appealed on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to show they interfered in Loktronic’s business by unlawful means or conspired to do so. NHEL abandoned its appeal against the finding that the manufacturing contract was exclusive. This Court allows the appeals by the appellants other than NHEL. In relation to the claims based on inducing breach of contract, the Court holds that the required standard of knowledge was not met as a matter of law and that the High Court had applied an objective rather than subjective test. In relation to the claim of interference by unlawful means, the Court holds that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the statements made to NHEL were not genuinely believed by the persons making them. The Court also holds that there was no evidence that effeff had suffered a loss as a result of the interference. The Court sets aside the judgment in favour of Loktronic and orders that Loktronic must pay the appellants other than NHEL costs on a band A basis for a complex appeal. Costs in relation to the appeal by NHEL lie where they fall.

Orders