Internet Traders Ltd v Williams - [2015] NZHC 2327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV 2014-470-158 [2015] NZHC 2327

BETWEEN
INTERNET TRADERS LTD AND ORS

Plaintiffs

AND

NICOLE JEAN WILLIAMS AND ORS Defendants

Hearing: 21 September 2015 (in Auckland)

Counsel:

J P Temm and K J Patterson for Plaintiffs
R E Harrison QC for Defendants

Judgment:

24 September 2015

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 September 2015 at 2.30pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Ken Patterson, Tauranga
Abernethy Broatch Law, Mount Maunganui
Counsel:
J P Temm, Rotorua
R E Harrison QC, Auckland

INTERNET TRADERS LTD AND ORS v WILLIAMS AND ORS [2015] NZHC 2327 [24 September 2015]

The application

[1] Ms Nicole Williams, the trustees of the Aesculapian Family Trust (Ms Williams and Arnold Trustees 2009 Ltd), Glencove (2014) Ltd and KiwiPharma Ltd (collectively, the Williams’ interests) apply to review a number of decisions made by Associate Judge Bell, in the High Court at Tauranga, on 15 July 20151, reasons for which were given on 3 August 2015.2 For present purposes, the decision in issue determined that part of the substantive claim should be set down for seven days commencing on 9 November 2015, on terms directed by the Associate Judge.3

[2] The Williams’ interests also apply for orders striking out parts of the Third Amended Statement of Claim of 24 July 2015, which was filed following the directions given by Judge Bell on 15 July 2015 but before his reasons for judgment were available.

[3] All applications are opposed by the plaintiffs, Internet Traders Ltd, IT Pharmaceutical Supplies Ltd (IT Pharmaceutical) and the trustees of the JR and LJ Heale Family Trust (Mr John Heale, Ms Lauren Heale and Holland Beckett Trustee No 5 Ltd).

[4] In this judgment, I determine the application to review Judge Bell’s decision on whether a split trial, in the form he directed, should proceed in November 2015. My decision on remaining issues remains reserved. As I have decided to set aside the order for the split trial, it is unnecessary to provide a hurried response to the important pleading and discovery questions raised by the other applications.

Applications to review decisions of Associate Judges: legal principles

[5] The power of a Judge of this Court to review a decision made by an Associate

Judge is conferred by s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 and r 2.3 of the High Court

Rules. My duty is to rehear the application determined by Judge Bell.4

1      Internet Traders Ltd v Williams HC Tauranga CIV 2014-470-158, 15 July 2015 (Minute).
2      Internet Traders Ltd v Williams [2015] NZHC 1809.
3      See para [13] below, and following.
4      High Court Rules, r 2.3(4).

[6] The “rehearing” approach equates an application to review an Associate Judge’s decision to an appeal. While the Williams’ interests have the burden of persuading me that the decision is wrong, I must make my own assessment of the points in…

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 Ltd v Williams

Details

AGLC: Internet Traders Ltd v Williams [2015] NZHC 2327
Case: [2015] NZHC 2327
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Internet Traders Ltd v Williams, the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, considered an application by the Williams' interests to review and set aside certain decisions made by an Associate Judge. The Williams' interests sought to overturn a decision to conduct a split trial, where liability would be determined separately from questions of relief, and to strike out parts of the Third Amended Statement of Claim. The plaintiffs, Internet Traders Ltd and others, opposed the applications. The court determined that the Associate Judge's decision to conduct a split trial, which limited the scope of the first trial to injunctive relief without addressing causation, damage, or relief, should be set aside. The court found that the split trial order did not serve the interests of the plaintiffs, who did not seek to renew their application for interim relief, and could lead to unnecessary delay and complications. As a result, the split trial was vacated, and the entire proceeding was scheduled for a three-week hearing in 2016. Further case management directions were reserved, and costs on all applications were also reserved.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Associate Judge's decision on the split trial should be reviewed, and if so, whether it should be set aside. The court considered the appropriate standard of review, which is akin to an appeal, and applied the principles established in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar. The court found that the split trial order was not in the best interest of the plaintiffs, as it would not address crucial questions of causation and damage, and could result in unnecessary delays. The court also noted that the separation of claims for injunctive relief from those involving causation and quantification of loss could create significant difficulties and risks for the defendants. Therefore, the court decided to set aside the split trial order and schedule a single hearing for the entire proceeding.

Orders