Hyzon Motors Inc v Bartlett - [2024] NZHC 1193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1755

[2024] NZHC 1193

BETWEEN
HYZON MOTORS INC

Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL BARTLETT

Defendant

Hearing: 17 April 2024

Appearances:

S C Trevella and G Worthington for the Plaintiff T Cooley for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Plaintiff’s applications for further and better discovery and better answers to interrogatories; defendant’s application for orders for particular discovery]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2024 at 3:00pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bell Gully (Stephen Trevella/G Worthington), Auckland, for the Plaintiff Brookfields (Tyrone Cooley), Auckland, for the Defendant

HYZON MOTORS INC v MICHAEL BARTLETT [2024] NZHC 1193 [31 May 2024]

Table of Contents

Introduction [1]

Background [6]

Hyzon’s application for further and better discovery [10] Hyzon’s application for further and better answers to interrogatories [13] Mr Bartlett’s application for further discovery [16]

Legal principles [19]

Further and better discovery [19]
Further and better answers to interrogatories [22]

Analysis [25]

Hyzon’s discovery application [27]

Financial documents of Global NRG [28]

Conclusion in respect of Global NRG financial documents [31]

Emails and electronic communications [34] Conclusion in relation to emails and other electronic communications [42] Specific documents in Schedule 1 [44]
Conclusion in relation to Schedule 1 documents [47]

Hyzon’s application for better answers to interrogatories  [49] Category 1:     Failure to properly answer questions  [51] Category 2: Insufficient grounds for objections to answer questions entirely [54] Hyzon’s interrogatories relating to matters in issue  [55]
Hyzon’s interrogatories are necessary  [56]
No oppression  [61]
Category 3:     Evasion of subsequent questions  [63]
Conclusions in relation to better answers to interrogatories  [65]

Mr Bartlett’s application for particular discovery [66]

Mr Bartlett’s letter of 15 March 2024 [73]
Conclusion in relation to Mr Bartlett’s discovery application [74]

Result [75]

Orders [78]

Introduction

[1] In the substantive proceedings, the plaintiff, Hyzon Motors Inc (Hyzon), alleges that it was misled by the defendant, Mr Michael Bartlett (Mr Bartlett), to purchase shares and options to buy shares in Global NRG H2 Limited (Global NRG H2) of which company Mr Bartlett is sole director.

[2]Hyzon now makes two applications, seeking orders against Mr Bartlett for:

(a)further and better discovery; and

(b)further and better answers to interrogatories.

[3] Mr Bartlett in turn makes an application for orders for particular discovery against Hyzon.

[4] Hyzon designs and produces hydrogen fuel cells that provide zero-emission power for trucks and heavy industry.

[5] Mr Bartlett is a New Zealand resident and a director of a number of associated companies, which he describes as the Global NRG group (Global NRG). This group includes the New Zealand companies, Global NRG H2 and Global NRG Limited (Global NRG NZ).1

Background

[6] On 31 October 2020, Hyzon signed two agreements: one to subscribe and pay for shares in Global NRG H2; and the other giving Hyzon…

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 Hyzon Motors Inc v Bartlett 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: [2024] NZHC 1193
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hyzon Motors Inc has brought a claim against Michael Bartlett, alleging that Bartlett misled Hyzon to purchase shares and options to buy shares in Global NRG H2 Limited. Hyzon seeks orders for further and better discovery and better answers to interrogatories against Bartlett, while Bartlett has made an application for particular discovery against Hyzon. The court considered the applications in light of the legal principles governing discovery and interrogatories, balancing the relevance and importance of the documents sought against the proportionality of the discovery exercise. The court concluded that Hyzon's application for discovery and better answers to interrogatories should be granted, while Bartlett's application for particular discovery should also be granted. The court's decision is detailed in the attached schedules, which outline the specific documents to be discovered and the interrogatories to which better answers are required. Costs are to follow the event, with counsel for the parties to agree on costs or, failing agreement, for the court to decide on the papers.

Orders