Legal Research
Cases
Hook v Callaghan Innovation

Hook v Callaghan Innovation

Case [2024] NZHC 2240 9 August 2024

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-000243

[2024] NZHC 2240

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK

Appellant

AND

CALLAGHAN INNOVATION

Respondent

Hearing: 6 August 2024 (via VMR)

Counsel:

Appellant in person

C R Langstone for Respondent

Judgment:

9 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

Appeal against a decision to strike out a claim in negligence

[1] Mr Hook appeals against a District Court decision striking out his negligence claim against Callaghan Innovation (Callaghan).1

[2] Mr Hook, the second plaintiff, is the director of the first plaintiff, Surface Micro-Guard Ltd (SMG). Callaghan is a Crown agency that, among other things,2 administered a loan grant scheme to support businesses performing research and development to supplement shortfalls in private funding attributed to the COVID- 19 pandemic.

1 Surface Micro-Guard Ltd v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZDC 7314 [Decision on appeal].
2 Callaghan’s primary objective, as set out in s 13 of the Callaghan Innovation Act 2012, is to “support science and technology-based innovation and its commercialisation by businesses, primarily in the manufacturing sector and services sector, in order to improve their growth and competitiveness.”

HOOK v CALLAGHAN INNOVATION [2024] NZHC 2240 [9 August 2024]

Background

[3] This case is one of a myriad of proceedings Mr Hook has commenced in association with the same underlying dispute. Five such proceedings have been struck out and the fourth and fifth led to orders under s 213 of the District Court Act 2016 restraining Mr Hook and any company in which he is a director from commencing related proceedings for a five-year period.3

[4] In a decision dated 29 July 2024, Radich J upheld the District Court’s order striking out the fourth and fifth proceedings and restraining orders under s 213 of the District Court Act. It is convenient to adopt Radich J’s summary of the related proceedings:4
The five proceedings

The first proceeding

[5] Cross Slot IP Ltd designs and manufactures agricultural machinery. The machinery includes “opener technologies” (designed to sow seeds into untilled soils) and the “machines” or “frames” that support and operate the opener technologies in the field. Cross Slot IP’s directors are Dr Christopher Baker, the second respondent, and Noel Ullrich, the third respondent.

[6] In February 2019, Cross Slot IP entered into a heads of agreement with Surface Micro-Guard Ltd. Mr Hook is Surface Micro-Guard’s director. Under the heads of agreement, a new company, Cross Slot Europe Ltd was established and was licensed to distribute Cross Slot IP’s opener technologies and to manufacture and distribute its machines and frames in the United Kingdom, Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

[7] Mr Hook sought to give effect to the terms of the heads of agreement through the operation, by him, of Cross Slot Europe. He did so from the Ukraine, where he still lives.

[8] On 28 March 2021, Cross Slot IP cancelled Cross Slot Europe’s licence. It believed that Cross Slot Europe had used its access to Cross Slot IP’s…

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 Hook v Callaghan Innovation

Details

AGLC: Hook v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZHC 2240
Case: [2024] NZHC 2240
Decision Date: 9 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hook v Callaghan Innovation, the appellant, Mr Hook, appeals against a decision of the District Court to strike out his claim in negligence against Callaghan Innovation (Callaghan). The core of the dispute revolves around a loan granted by Callaghan to Cross Slot IP Ltd (CSIP), which Mr Hook claims was negligently administered and led to the cancellation of a licensing agreement between CSIP and Cross Slot Europe Ltd (CSE), causing loss to Mr Hook and Surface Micro-Guard Ltd (SMG). The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in striking out the claim and whether there was any apparent bias in the Judge's decision.

The court found that the District Court's decision to strike out the claim was correct. The court held that Callaghan could not owe a duty of care to Mr Hook and SMG in administering a loan to CSIP, a third party. The court noted that even if there was a novel duty of care, it would be unreasonable and contrary to public policy to impose such a duty given the context of the loan scheme aimed at supporting businesses during the pandemic. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of a causal link between the loan and the cancellation of the licensing agreement. The court also dismissed Mr Hook's allegations of bias against the District Court Judge, finding no grounds to support such claims.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Callaghan was directed to file costs submissions within ten working days of the decision. Mr Hook was to file his reply submissions five working days thereafter, after which the court would determine the costs on the papers.

Orders