Moda Systems NZ Limited v McLaren Smart Processing Limited - [2022] NZHC 1743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-441-96

[2022] NZHC 1743

UNDER the Copyright Act 1994, the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

BETWEEN

MODA SYSTEMS NZ LIMITED

First Plaintiff

MODA IP LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

RG NEWCOMBE
Third Plaintiff

AND

McLAREN SMART PROCESSING LIMITED

First Defendant

AR McLAREN
Second Defendant

MULTIVAC AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 23 June 2022

Counsel:

EC Gray and JC Murdoch for plaintiffs

KM Quinn and SA Rankin for first and second defendants Appearance for third defendant excused

Judgment:

20 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 July 2022 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MODA SYSTEMS NZ LTD v McLAREN SMART PROCESSING LTD [2022] NZHC 1743 [20 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs have applied for further and better particulars of the first defendant’s counterclaim. The hearing was allocated urgently as the two-week substantive fixture is scheduled to commence on 14 November 2022.

[2] The counterclaim was first filed in February 2022 together with the first and second defendants’ statement of defence. It was amended in April following the filing of the plaintiffs’ application for further and better particulars. The plaintiffs say however that several aspects of its application remain outstanding:1
2.1Paragraphs 93 to 95: Particulars of the pleading in paragraphs 93 to 95 that each identified diagram was “shared with the First and Third Plaintiffs,” including:
2.1.1When, how, by whom and to whom;
2.1.2Each diagram was shared; and
2.1.3If by way of document, identifying the document by which the sharing was effected with sufficient particularity;

2.2Paragraph 92: Particulars, for each of the diagrams identified in paragraphs 93 to 95 of the Amended Counterclaim, of the pleading that the Moda Machines “incorporate components, and/or arrangements of components that are copied from components and/or arrangements of [the] components in the First Defendant’s i- Range of Machines” identified in paragraphs 93-95 of the Amended Counterclaim, including:
2.2.1The confidential information allegedly misused, and how that confidential information has been allegedly misused by reference to the applicable component(s) and/or arrangement of component(s) of relevant Moda Machine(s).
2.2.2The copyright work allegedly copied and how, and whether in whole or substantial part and if as to a substantial part particulars of the substantial part by reference to applicable component and/or arrangement of component(s) of relevant Moda Machine(s).

1 Plaintiffs’ Synopsis in Support of Application for Further and Better Particulars of First Defendant’s Counterclaim, dated 22 June 2022.

[3] The first defendant submits the plaintiffs are pursuing particulars that they do not need and that go beyond what is required in terms of the High Court Rules 2016. Furthermore, the first defendant says they are particulars that the plaintiffs’ own claim does not provide.

[4] In the first defendant’s submission, the touchstone for particulars as required by r 5.26(b) is that the responding party must be sufficiently informed of the…

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 Moda Systems NZ Limited v McLaren Smart Processing Limited 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: [2022] NZHC 1743
Decision Date: 20 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Moda Systems NZ Limited and others brought an application against McLaren Smart Processing Limited and others. The plaintiffs sought further and better particulars of the first defendant’s counterclaim. The counterclaim alleged breach of contractual and equitable duties of confidentiality and primary infringement of copyright. The plaintiffs sought particulars as to the sharing of diagrams and the identification of the confidential information and copyright works allegedly misused. The first defendant opposed the application, submitting that the particulars sought were matters of evidence, not pleading and that the counterclaim was adequately particularised. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the further particulars sought as they were necessary for the plaintiffs to understand the case against them and to enable them to prepare for trial. The court ordered that McLaren Smart Processing Limited file a more explicit counterclaim by 3 August 2022. The plaintiffs were entitled to costs of the application on a 2B basis, with the preparation of the bundle on a 2A basis and with second counsel justified.

Orders