Internet Traders Limited v Williams - [2015] NZHC 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000187 [2015] NZHC 229

BETWEEN
INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

IT PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLIES LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

JOHN ROULSTON HEALE Third Plaintiff

AND

NICOLE JEAN WILLIAMS First Defendant

GLENCOVE (2014) LIMITED (formerly

Casper47 Holdings Limited) Second Defendant

TENTACLE ENTERPRISES LIMITED Third Defendant

KIWIPHARMA LIMITED Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 17 February 2015

Appearances:

Jonathan Temm for the Plaintiffs
Dr Rodney Harrison QC for the Defendants

Judgment:

20 February 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by on 20 February 2015 at 1:00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED & ORS v WILLIAMS & ORS [2015] NZHC 229 [20 February 2015]

[1] Dr Harrison QC, for the defendants, seeks an adjournment of the trial in this matter which is set down to commence on 9 March 2015 with an estimated duration of five days. Dr Harrison submits that for a variety of reasons, principally relating to recent amendments to the statement of claim and outstanding issues around discovery, his clients’ defence will be prejudiced if the trial was to proceed as presently scheduled. Furthermore, he submits that in light of recent developments the allotted time for the hearing is inadequate and a new trial date must, in any event, be allocated if the trial is not to be adjourned part heard. Mr Temm, for the plaintiffs, submits that his clients are ready to proceed, that Dr Harrison’s complaints are exaggerated and that the time allocated is more than sufficient to accommodate the trial.

Background

[2] The first defendant, Ms Williams, and the third plaintiff, Mr Heale, were business partners in several ventures between 1999 and 2014. The present proceedings relate to the circumstances in which that relationship ended.

[3] For a number of years, Ms Williams and Mr Heale were both directors and shareholders of the first and second plaintiff companies. These companies were involved in selling pharmaceutical products online. It appears the businesses were fairly successful. They also owned a partnership together which held shares in a further company.

[4] In early 2014, Ms Williams offered to buy out Mr Heale's interest in the companies. He refused. Mr Heale alleges that Ms Williams then sabotaged the companies before resigning as a director and going on to set up several of her own companies in competition to those she owned with Mr Heale. Mr Heale claims that Ms Williams breached her obligations as a director and under a shareholder's agreement. He also makes allegations of unjust enrichment. On these claims Mr Heale and the plaintiff companies seek remedies which include a mixture of damages and injunctions. Mr Heale also seeks an order requiring Ms Williams to buy his interest in the first and second plaintiffs because of her alleged prejudicial conduct.

Recent developments

[5] The trial was originally set down for one week commencing 9 March 2015. Counsel subsequently agreed that this timeframe would be insufficient for the whole hearing and at…

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 Internet Traders Limited v Williams

Details

AGLC: Internet Traders Limited v Williams [2015] NZHC 229
Case: [2015] NZHC 229
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Internet Traders Limited and two other plaintiffs brought an action against Nicole Jean Williams and three other defendants concerning the dissolution of a business partnership. The plaintiffs alleged that Ms Williams had breached her obligations as a director and under a shareholder's agreement, as well as claims of unjust enrichment. The defendants sought an adjournment of the trial due to recent amendments to the statement of claim and outstanding issues around discovery. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that they were ready to proceed, and the allotted time for the hearing was sufficient to accommodate the trial.

The Court had to decide whether to grant the adjournment requested by the defendants, considering the recent amendments to the statement of claim, the need for further discovery, and the potential impact on the defendants' ability to mount an effective defence. The Court considered the interests of justice, the potential for prejudice to the defendants, and the impact of the adjournment on the plaintiffs and other litigants.

The Court decided to grant the adjournment, as the recent amendments to the statement of claim had increased the complexity of the case, and the defendants required more time to respond to the new allegations and fulfil their discovery obligations. The Court also considered the length of the hearing and the need for further discovery, which led to the conclusion that five days would not be sufficient to complete the liability hearing. The Court ordered the hearing to be adjourned and directed the parties to organise a new date for the hearing, while exhorting both counsel to co-operate with each other in obtaining agreement on timetabling orders.

The Court's final orders included the adjournment of the hearing on 9 March 2015, directing the parties to organise a new date for the hearing with the Registrar. The Court also recorded its exhortation to both counsel to co-operate with each other in obtaining agreement on timetabling orders, and if the parties remain unable to agree, they are to file memoranda for the Court's determination. Costs were reserved.

Orders