Monnery v Parsons - [2025] NZHC 2036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-482

[2025] NZHC 2036

BETWEEN
PAUL MARK MONNERY

First Plaintiff

PAUL MARK MONNERY and JULIE ANN MONNERY

Second Plaintiffs

AND

ANDREW GRAHAM PARSONS
First Defendant

JOHN MURRAY CREIGHTON

Second Defendant Cont Over

Hearing: 16 July 2025

Appearances:

C R Carruthers KC/ R Fletcher for the First and Second Plaintiffs J D Haig for First and Sixth Defendants

No appearance for the other Defendants

Judgment:

23 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 July 2025 at 4 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Woods Fletcher Associates, Wellington Macalister Mazengarb, Wellington
K3 Legal Ltd, Auckland
Claymore Partners, Auckland George Bogiatto, Auckland Port Nicholson Chambers
Colin Carruthers KC, Wellington

MONNERY v PARSONS [2025] NZHC 2036 [23 July 2025]

AND BRUCE GORDON COPELAND
Third Defendant
KURT BREDENBECH
Fourth Defendant
MURRAY CHARLES PARSONS
Fifth Defendant
PUSH DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Defendant
SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Seventh Defendant
SANDFIELD VENTURES LIMITED
Eighth Defendant
P K B INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Ninth Defendant

Introduction

[1] These proceedings are scheduled for a three-week trial commencing on 8 September 2025 (the September trial). The close of pleadings date has passed and any further interlocutory applications require the leave of the Court.

[2] The plaintiffs, Paul and Julie Monnery (the Monnerys), seek leave to apply for further discovery from the first defendant, Andrew Parsons, and the sixth defendant, Push Developments Ltd (Push), which is a company associated with Andrew Parsons (collectively referred to as Parsons). Parsons seek leave to apply for determination of three preliminary questions.

[3] On 4 July 2025, Associate Judge Skelton ordered that the applications for leave and the substantive interlocutory applications be heard together on 16 July 2025.1 The applications are determined in this judgment.

Background

[4] I adopt the background set out by Radich J in his judgment dated 23 May 2024 (dealing with an application for further discovery by the Monnerys):2

[5] Convendium Ltd was incorporated in 2005. It developed and marketed technology for operating cashless vending machines. A related company, Eftpos Vending Ltd was incorporated in 2013 and was involved in the overall business venture as a licensee for the cashless payment system.

[6] Initially, Mr Monnery was the sole director of the business and the person with day-to-day responsibility for its management. Mr and Mrs Monnery, as trustees of the Monnery Family Trust were the owners of the shares in Convendium and Eftpos Vending.

[7] The defendants all became involved with the business in various ways, as shareholders (directly and indirectly), directors, developers of software and investors.

[8] It is alleged in the proceeding that, in May 2015, some of the defendants took steps to remove Mr Monnery as a director of the business and to prevent him from having any ongoing involvement with it. Subsequently, it is said, steps were taken to cause the plaintiffs a loss of the value…

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 Monnery v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Monnery v Parsons [2025] NZHC 2036
Case: [2025] NZHC 2036
Decision Date: 23 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court is an interlocutory application regarding the proceedings between Paul and Julie Monnery, as plaintiffs, and various defendants, including Andrew Parsons. The Monnerys seek leave to apply for further discovery from Parsons and the defendants seek leave to apply for the determination of three preliminary questions. The applications were heard on 16 July 2025, and judgment was delivered on 23 July 2025.

The legal issues that the Court was required to decide were whether the Monnerys could seek further discovery from Parsons, and whether the defendants could apply for the determination of preliminary questions. The Monnerys sought financial records from entities associated with Parsons, which they argued were necessary to establish the diminution in value of their economic interests as a result of Parsons' tortious conduct. The defendants sought to determine three preliminary questions relating to standing, reflective loss, and the definition of confidential information.

The Court declined both applications. In relation to the Monnerys' application for further discovery, the Court found that the Monnerys had left their application too late and that granting the application could prejudice the defendants and risk a further adjournment of the trial. The Court also declined the defendants' application for the determination of preliminary questions, finding that the questions were not clearly demarcated from matters that would remain to be determined at trial, and that the questions went to the heart of the Monnerys' claim.

The Court ordered that the plaintiffs' application for leave to file an interlocutory application and the application for further discovery be declined, and that the first and sixth defendants' application for leave to file an interlocutory application and the interlocutory application for the determination of preliminary questions be declined. The Court's preliminary view was that costs should lie where they fell.

Orders