Hook v Scott - [2024] NZHC 2071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2024-454-000005

[2024] NZHC 2071

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK

First Appellant

AND

MARK LAWRENCE SCOTT

First Respondent

CHRISTOPHER JOHN BAKER
Second Respondent

NOEL BRUCE ULLRICH

Third Respondent

Hearing: 9 July 2024

Counsel:

Mr Hook in person

P J Drummond for Respondents

Judgment:

29 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] Mr Hook claims that a company wrongfully terminated a contract that was in place between it and a company in which he was involved. Three different proceedings in the District Court, by and against the companies involved, were struck out.

[2] Two new proceedings were brought in their place – one by Mr Hook against two named individuals and one by Surface Micro-Guard Ltd (in which Mr Hook is a director) against one of the same individuals and another individual.

HOOK v SCOTT [2024] NZHC 2071 [29 July 2024]

[3] Because there could be no tenable cause of action by or against the individuals named as parties, and given the inappropriateness of the proceedings, Judge Rowe in the District Court made orders under s 213 of the District Court Act 2016 restraining Mr Hook and Surface Micro-Guard from continuing with either of the proceedings for a five-year period and restraining Mr Hook and any company in which he is a director from commencing related proceedings for a five-year period.1

[4] Mr Hook brings this appeal from that decision. For the reasons that follow, I see the s 213 orders as having been made appropriately.

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.

1 Hook v Scott [2023] NZDC 2299. The District Court Judge ordered, in addition, that Mr Hook’s claim against one of the named individuals, Mr Scott, would be struck out for failing to disclose a tenable cause of action. That order was not challenged in this appeal.

[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 intellectual property and…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: Hook v Scott [2024] NZHC 2071
Case: [2024] NZHC 2071
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hook v Scott, Christopher Hook appeals against a decision of Judge Rowe in the District Court that made orders under s 213 of the District Court Act 2016 restraining Hook and Surface Micro-Guard Ltd from continuing with any of a series of proceedings against named defendants for a period of five years. Hook's appeal focuses on the cancellation of a licence by Cross Slot IP Ltd, which Hook claims was wrongful. The District Court had struck out several earlier proceedings brought by Hook and by Surface Micro-Guard Ltd against Cross Slot IP Ltd and others because they were without merit. Hook then brought two new proceedings against different defendants, which were also struck out for non-payment of security for costs. Hook then brought two further proceedings, which are the subject of the s 213 orders under appeal. The appeal against the s 213 orders is dismissed. The Court found that the proceedings brought by Hook were without merit and that the Judge had appropriately exercised his discretion to make the s 213 orders because Hook had brought meritless proceedings against a widening circle of defendants in a manner that was vexatious and oppressive. The Court also found that the form of the orders was appropriate and that there was no basis for the Judge to have recused himself. The respondents are entitled to a single award of costs on a 2B basis.

Orders