Monnery v Parsons - [2021] NZHC 2854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-482

[2021] NZHC 2854

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

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

PKB INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Ninth Defendant

Hearing: 17 August 2021

Appearances:

C R Carruthers QC and R L Fletcher for plaintiffs

P R W Chisnall and J D Haig for the first and sixth defendants J P Nolen for second defendant

MONNERY v PARSONS [2021] NZHC 2854 [26 October 2021]

D J Chishom QC and J D Ryan for third, seventh and eighth

defendants
G Bogiatto for fourth, fifth and ninth defendants

Judgment:

26 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

Introduction

[1] This proceeding was commenced on 4 July 2018. Three years on, interlocutories are not complete. The plaintiffs say that, once they are, they intend to replead their claim. Before the Court for determination are the remnants of applications by the plaintiffs for orders relating to interrogatories and discovery, and by two of the defendant groups for orders relating to discovery, the determination of a preliminary question or referral of that question to an expert for determination, and further security for costs. I say “remnants” because the lion’s share of these applications fell away prior to or during the hearing. Furthermore, in my assessment, other aspects cannot sensibly be dealt with at this stage.

[2] The background was described in my judgment dated 19 December 2018,1 and more recently by Associate Judge Sussock in a judgment dated 6 May 2021 in separate but closely related proceedings.2

[3]A brief summary will suffice for present purposes.

[4] At the centre of the case is a company by the name of Convendium Ltd. The company was incorporated in June 2005 as a vehicle for developing and bringing to market a cashless payment system for vending machines. The second plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Monnery, in their capacities as the trustees of a family trust, were the promoters and the original shareholders. The first plaintiff, Mr Monnery, was

1 Monnery v Parsons [2018] NZHC 3414 at [1]–[3].
2 Sandfield Associates Ltd v Monnery [2021] NZHC 1003 at [7]–[19].

formerly the sole director and manager. In a variety of different circumstances the defendant groups became shareholders or creditors of the company.

[5] In or about March 2015 there was a major falling out between Mr Monnery and the defendants (and, as I understand the position, between certain of the defendants too). In any event, from that date, Mr Monnery had no further involvement with the management of the company. Eventually Covendium failed altogether. It was struck off the register in November 2017, presumably for failure to comply with its statutory obligations. In November 2018 it was reinstated and…

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 [2021] NZHC 2854
Case: [2021] NZHC 2854
Decision Date: 26 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Monnery v Parsons was heard with Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery as plaintiffs and various defendants including Andrew Graham Parsons, Push Developments Limited, and Sandfield Associates Limited. The central dispute revolves around allegations of unlawful means and conspiracy to injure economic interests relating to intellectual property and business operations associated with Convendium Ltd, a company involved in cashless payment systems for vending machines. The plaintiffs sought further discovery and relief, while the defendants opposed these applications, raising questions about the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and the relevance of the requested documentation.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiffs' applications for further discovery and the defendants' applications for security for costs and expert determination were justified. The primary legal issues centered on the relevance and proportionality of the discovery requests, the standing of the plaintiffs to claim proprietary rights over the intellectual property, and the apparent merits of the plaintiffs' claims in determining security for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' applications for further discovery against the first and sixth, second, and fifth defendants were dismissed because, on the current pleadings, the plaintiffs did not assert any proprietary interest in the intellectual property, and thus had no standing to pursue remedies for its alleged usurpation. The court also rejected the notion that the discovery process could be used to unearth a cause of action. The applications for further security for costs were adjourned pending the repleading of the plaintiffs' case, as the court deemed it premature to reassess the merits of the case without knowing the extent of the reformulation of the plaintiffs' claims.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs' applications for further discovery were dismissed, while the applications for further security for costs were adjourned. An order was made for the plaintiffs to provide discovery regarding their financial positions, as relevant to their pleaded claim for losses. Costs were reserved, to be resolved either by agreement or through memoranda if necessary.

Orders