Internet Traders Limited v Hutson (formerly Williams)

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2014-470-158 [2016] NZHC 1269

UNDER the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED First Plaintiff

IT PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLIES LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

JOHN ROULSTON HEALE Third Plaintiff

JOHN ROULSTON HEALE

LAUREN JOYCE HEALE as trustees of the JR and LJ HEALE FAMILY TRUST and

HOLLAND BECKETT TREUSTEE NO.5

LIMITED Fourth Plaintiffs

AND

NICOLE JEAN HUTSON (FORMERLY NICOLE JEAN WILLIAMS)

Defendant

Hearing: 9 May 2015 at 2:15pm

Appearances:

D H McLellan QC and A Sinclair for Plaintiffs
R E Harrison QC for Defendant

Judgment:

13 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on  13 June 2016 at 5:00pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Solicitors/Counsel:

…………………………………………………….

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Daniel H McLellan QC, Auckland, for Plaintiffs

Ken Patterson, Tauranga, for Plaintiffs
Rodney E Harrison QC, Auckland, for Defendant

Abernethy Broatch Law, Mt Maunganui, for Defendant

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED v HUTSON (FORMERLY WILLIAMS) [2016] NZHC 1269 [13 June 2016]

Introduction

[1]      This is another decision on the plaintiffs’ pleadings.   In the first decision I dealt with the plaintiffs’ second amended statement of claim.1   In the second, Heath J addressed the third amended statement of claim.2   After that, the plaintiff instructed new counsel and a fourth amended statement of claim was filed.   The defendant objected to that pleading.  I gave directions on 10 February 2016 for the plaintiffs to

file and serve a draft proposed amended pleading and for the defendant to file any applications in respect of that proposed pleading.   She applied to strike out the proposed amended pleading, or for further particulars.

[2]      The  background  to  the  proceeding  has  been  given  in  earlier  judgments,

especially Heath J’s decision on the plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction.3

Notwithstanding changes in pleadings, the most important part of the plaintiffs’ case has always been that, leading up to her resignation as director on 23 June 2014, Mrs Williams (now Mrs Hutson4) breached duties she owed to IT Pharmaceutical Supplies Ltd.  Those breaches affected the business of the company adversely and also enabled her to set up a competing business.  In that new business she has used confidential information obtained while a director of IT Pharmaceutical Supplies

Ltd.

[3]      The draft pleading has these causes of action:

1Internet Traders Ltd sues Mrs Hutson for breach of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993 for making unauthorised payments, and  also  for  certain  actions,  which  are  pleaded  elsewhere  (in paragraph   29),   as   detrimental   to   and   in   breach   of   duty   to

IT Pharmaceutical Supplies Ltd.

1      Internet Traders Ltd v Williams [2015] NZHC 1809.

2      Internet Traders Ltd v Williams [2015] NZHC 2562.

3      Internet Traders Ltd v Williams [2014] NZHC 3407, [2015] NZCCLR 7.

4      At the start of the proceeding, she was Nicole Jean Williams, but she has remarried and is now

Nicole Jean Hutson.

2In the alternative to the first, Internet Traders Ltd sues her for breach of fiduciary duty, relying on the same…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Internet Traders Limited v Hutson (formerly Williams) 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
[2016] NZHC 1269
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiffs, Internet Traders Limited, IT Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, and others, filed a suit against Nicole Jean Hutson (formerly Nicole Jean Williams) alleging breaches of directors' duties and fiduciary duties, misuse of confidential information, and oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under the Companies Act 1993. The court addressed several legal issues, including the survival of fiduciary duties after resignation, causation and monetary relief, and the scope of section 174 of the Companies Act. The court ruled that certain fiduciary duties could survive a director's resignation, but other duties ended with the resignation. The plaintiffs needed to provide more information on the effects of the breaches, the financial losses, and the calculations of damages. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claim under section 174 of the Companies Act was not necessarily dismissible, but the plaintiffs needed to provide more details on the alleged oppressive conduct and its effects on the company's affairs. The court denied the defendant's application for disciplinary strike-out, as the plaintiffs had arguable cases and the delay in amending the pleadings did not justify striking out the proceedings. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a fresh statement of claim following the directions in the judgment and set a further case management conference to discuss discovery and other pre-trial matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.