Disclosure of private information to Grahame Thorne[60]
Provision of flash drives including all emails from the Laptop to Mr Slevin
on 14 June 2011 and 26 August 2011[63]
Breach of privacy in CIV-2012-409-2486[67]

Mr Hyndman’s claim [69]

Breach of duty of confidentiality[74]
Does the information have the necessary quality of confidence about it?[75] Was the information imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence?[81]

HYNDMAN v WALKER [2019] NZHC 2188 [3 September 2019]

Breach of privacy [90]

Did Mr Hyndman have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to his
information on the Laptop?[94]
Did Mr Walker have notice that the information was private?[98] Would disclosure be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person?[99] Misfeasance in public office[103]

Breach of statutory duty [107]

Contempt[109]

Result[113]

Introduction

[1] Ian Hyndman is a close friend of David Henderson, a Christchurch businessman, who has been engaged in a protracted battle with Robert Walker, the liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd (PVL) and a number of other companies of which David Henderson was formerly a director. The battle between Mr Henderson and Mr Walker has become personal. Mr Walker came into possession of a laptop owned by PVL but used by Mr Henderson for business and personal matters (the Laptop). Mr Walker or his agents disclosed some of that information to the IRD, the Official Assignee and other third parties. Mr Hyndman claims his private and confidential information was included in those disclosures and he has brought proceedings against Mr Walker claiming breach of confidential information, breach of privacy, misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and contempt of court.

[2] These proceedings and the factual and legal context are closely tied to parallel proceedings brought by Mr Henderson under CIV-2014-409-45 and the subject of a separate decision.1

[3] Mr Hyndman seeks declarations in respect of his five causes of action, orders that Mr Walker provide a schedule of material accessed and to whom it has been distributed and $50,000 for personal anguish, humiliation and stress.

[4] Mr Walker denies that he made any unlawful disclosures and, even if he did, says that none met the required standard to establish the various claims.

1 Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184.

Background

[5] PVL was placed into receivership in March 2010 and liquidated on 27 July 2010, but the liquidation was stayed until 8 February 2012. This caused Mr Walker some considerable frustration. However, on 13 December 2010, Mr Walker was…

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 Hyndman v Walker

Details

AGLC: Hyndman v Walker [2019] NZHC 2188
Case: [2019] NZHC 2188
Decision Date: 3 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Bruce Hyndman brought a claim against Robert Bruce Walker alleging breach of confidential information, breach of privacy, misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and contempt of court. The claims arise out of Mr Walker’s possession of a laptop used by David Henderson, a businessman engaged in a protracted legal battle with Mr Walker, the liquidator of a number of companies of which Mr Henderson was formerly a director. Mr Walker or his agents disclosed some of the information on the laptop to third parties, including the IRD and the Official Assignee. Mr Hyndman claims that his private information was included in those disclosures and he has brought proceedings against Mr Walker. Mr Walker denies that he made any unlawful disclosures and, even if he did, says that none met the required standard to establish the various claims. The court found that none of Mr Hyndman’s claims were made out and dismissed them all. Mr Walker is entitled to some measure of costs. If the parties are unable to agree, submissions on Mr Walker’s behalf are to be filed and served within 28 days of this decision, with any response 14 days thereafter.

Orders