MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd - [2022] NZHC 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

COMMERCIAL PANEL

CIV-2020-404-1541

[2022] NZHC 2408

BETWEEN
MB TECHNOLOGY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD

First defendant

DAVID SHU-HAN YU
Second defendant

DANIEL JOHN CROTHERS
Third defendant

Continued overleaf

Hearing: 16 September 2022

Appearances:

S A Barker and L C Sizer for plaintiff

M Heard for first, fifth and sixth defendants AJB Holmes for second and third defendants

C P Browne and CJL Martin for fourth defendant

Date of judgment:

20 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 September 2022 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
J S Cooper KC, Auckland
AJB Holmes, Barrister, Auckland Buddle Findlay, Wellington
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland Wilson Harle, Auckland

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2022] NZHC 2408 [20
September 2022]

ECOMI TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD
Fourth defendant

DENISE MULLINGS
Fifth defendant

JAHANZAIB KHAN
Sixth defendant

[1] Ecomi and Orbis seek leave to appeal my 1 June 2022 judgment, dismissing both their applications to strike out MB Technology’s first cause of action as barred by a settlement agreement, and Orbis’ application for summary judgment on its counterclaims.1

Proposed appeals

[2] Ecomi and Orbis wish to argue on appeal I erred in concluding MB Technology’s first cause of action, alleging breach of a “Bonus OMI Token Contract”,2 was “not settled with … discontinued proceedings”.3 Orbis separately wishes to argue on appeal I erred in concluding “the agreements’ warranties and their contended consequences” only arguably constituted the parties’ express ‘remedy’ required to be given effect under s 34 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.4

[3] MB Technology responds, even if I erred (which it denies), my finding its first cause of action was not settled is not a final decision, and even if so open to appeal on the substantive decision; and my finding Orbis’ defences remained for determination at trial is orthodox. It says any appeal adds delay and cost.

Approach to applications for leave to appeal

[4] Section 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 prohibits appeals of orders or decisions on interlocutory applications in civil proceedings without this Court’s leave. The object of requiring such leave is:5

1      MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd [2022] NZHC 1257.
2      At [10]–[11].
3 At [23].
4 At [27].
5      Sandle v Stewart [1982] 1 NZLR 708 (CA) at 715.

… to limit the cases which may go on appeal in the interests of finality of litigation and the workload of the [appellate] Court, while preserving the integrity of the law and the interests of justice.

[5] The Court of Appeal recently endorsed this Court’s approach to leave as a “filtering mechanism”,6 noting its own approach to be similar:7

… leave to appeal should only be granted where the significance or implications of an arguable error of fact or law, either for…

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 MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd

Details

AGLC: MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd [2022] NZHC 2408
Case: [2022] NZHC 2408
Decision Date: 20 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd involves a dispute between MB Technology, the plaintiff, and Orbis Blockchain Technologies, the first defendant, along with several other defendants. The plaintiff, MB Technology, filed a suit against Orbis Blockchain Technologies for breach of contract and other related claims. The defendants, in turn, sought to have the plaintiff's claims struck out and requested summary judgment on their counterclaims. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry Commercial Panel.

The primary legal issues in this case pertain to the interpretation and enforcement of a settlement agreement between the parties, as well as the application of statutory provisions regarding the remedies for breach of contract. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's first cause of action was barred by the settlement agreement, and whether the defendants' counterclaims were valid and should be granted summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff's first cause of action was not settled with the discontinued proceedings, and that the settlement agreement did not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. The court also concluded that the defendants' counterclaims were not suitable for summary judgment and should be determined at trial. The court granted leave to appeal for the defendants regarding the settlement agreement issue but denied leave for the summary judgment issue. The court emphasised the importance of limiting interlocutory appeals to ensure finality of litigation and to preserve the integrity of the law and the interests of justice.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on the settlement agreement issue and denied the defendants' request for summary judgment on their counterclaims. The court granted leave to appeal for the defendants on the settlement agreement issue but denied leave for the summary judgment issue. The parties were directed to liaise on a timetable for the trial and to articulate the issues for trial in their memoranda. A case management conference was also scheduled to be convened before the court.

Orders