Donovan Group NZ Limited v Reid

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2018-488-00113 [2018] NZHC 2854

IN THE MATTER

of breach of contract, breach of equitable

duty and breach of tortious duties

BETWEEN

DONOVAN GROUP NZ LIMITED Plaintiff/Applicant

AND

HAEMISH LEE REID
First Defendant/Respondent

AND

SMARTSTEEL BUILDINGS LIMITED Second Defendant/Respondent

AND

BRETT STEVEN WALDRON Third Defendant/Respondent

AND

WALDRON CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING LIMITED

Fourth Defendant/Respondent

Telephone

Conference:

19 October 2018

Counsel:

CJR Baird for Plaintiff

Orders:

19 October 2018

Reasons:

5 November 2018

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 November 2018 at 12 midday

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DONOVAN GROUP NZ LIMITED v REID & ORS [2018] NZHC 2854 [5 November 2018]

Introduction

[1]      In this proceeding, the plaintiff, Donovan Group NZ Limited (the Donovan Group or the Group),1 has brought claims against a former employee, Mr H L Reid (the  first  defendant),  a  company  incorporated  by  him  (the  second  defendant), Mr B R Waldron (the third defendant), and a company of which Mr Waldron is a director (the fourth defendant).  The Donovan Group has filed a statement of claim alleging:

(a)in contract, a breach of the terms of the confidentiality clause in Mr Reid's former individual employment agreement with the Group (first cause of action);

(b)in equity, a breach of the defendants’ equitable duties of confidence to the Group (second cause of action);

(c)in  tort,  conversion  of  the  Group's  confidential  information  and intellectual property by the defendants (third cause of action); and

(d)in tort, a conspiracy by the defendants for an unlawful purpose and by unlawful means to harm the Group's business, reputation and goodwill (fourth cause of action).

[2]      The substantive relief sought includes declarations, permanent injunctions and claims for damages.

Without notice application for interlocutory orders – injunction, search and preservation

[3]      The  Donovan  Group  also  applied  urgently  without  notice  for  interim injunctions and search and preservation orders against the defendants.  The orders sought were comprehensive, authorising the Group's agents to search for, inspect, seize and preserve equipment and physical and electronic records relevant to the

1      In this judgment, “the Donovan Group” and “the Group” means the parent company which has brought the proceeding and all of its subsidiaries and associated companies.

matters at issue in the proceeding, and injuncting the defendants from misuse of the

Group’s confidential information.

[4]      By a Minute dated 19 October 2018, I made orders on a “without notice” basis, largely in terms of the orders sought, after raising some matters in a telephone conference with counsel for the Group, Mr Baird. I said I would issue the reasons for my decision to make the orders in a judgment to be delivered in due course. These are the reasons.

The background facts

[5]      It is necessary to explain the basis for the orders by summarising the facts I have assumed will be proved at trial, based on the affidavit evidence filed with the application.

[6]…