Monnery v Parsons - [2024] NZHC 1298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-482

[2024] NZHC 1298

BETWEEN
PAUL MARK MONNERY

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 BRUDENBECK
Fourth Defendant

MURRAY CHARLES PARSONS
Fifth Defendant

PUSH DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

continued…

Hearing: 14 May 2024

Counsel:

C R Carruthers KC and R L Fletcher for Plaintiffs J D Haig for First and Sixth Defendants

Judgment:

23 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[Further discovery]

MONNERY v PARSONS [2024] NZHC 1298 [23 May 2024]

… continued

SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Seventh Defendant
SANDFIELD VENTURES LIMITED
Eighth Defendant
P K B INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Ninth Defendant

[1] A residual discovery issue remains in this proceeding, in which damages are claimed on account of allegations that the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ economic interests in a business.

[2] The first and sixth defendants say that, when the plaintiffs’ damages claims are considered, money earned by the plaintiffs from, and the value of their interests in, a business that the plaintiffs started subsequently should be taken into account. Accordingly, the financial records of that subsequent business – Choice Retail Ltd – are sought. So too are the financial records of the second plaintiffs, in order to show the nature and value of the second plaintiffs’ interest in Choice Retail.

[3] The plaintiffs say that their earnings, subsequent to the events to which the proceeding relates, have all been disclosed and that financial information of or about Choice Retail is not relevant to an issue in the proceeding.

Overview of the primary allegations and affirmative defences

[4] Because the application turns on an assessment of relevance, the primary issues in the proceeding, framed by the pleadings, must be considered.

[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 of their shares. Convendium was removed from the register in November 2017 and (following a brief restoration) was placed into liquidation in February 2019. Eftpos Vending was placed into liquidation 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 Monnery v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Monnery v Parsons [2024] NZHC 1298
Case: [2024] NZHC 1298
Decision Date: 23 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Monnery v Parsons, the plaintiffs, Paul and Julie Monnery, are seeking damages for alleged interference with their economic interests in Convendium Ltd and Eftpos Vending Ltd. The defendants, including Andrew Parsons, Murray Parsons, and others, deny the allegations and claim that the plaintiffs' damages should be mitigated by their subsequent involvement in Choice Retail Ltd. The primary issue before the court is whether the financial records of Choice Retail Ltd and the Monnery Family Trust are relevant to the damages claims and should be disclosed.

The court considered the relevance of the financial records of Choice Retail Ltd and the Monnery Family Trust in the context of the pleadings. The defendants argue that these records are necessary to assess any loss suffered by the plaintiffs and to understand the mitigating effect of their involvement in Choice Retail Ltd. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that the acquisition of Choice Retail Ltd is a separate initiative and not relevant to the damages claims. The court found that the allegations in the pleadings, which suggest that the plaintiffs' interests in Choice Retail Ltd may offset their losses, necessitate the consideration of these financial records for the purposes of defining the scope of discovery.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide particular discovery of the financial statements and annual accounts of Choice Retail Ltd and the financial statements of the Monnery Family Trust relating to their shares in Convendium Ltd, Eftpos Vending Ltd, and Choice Retail Ltd since 2013. The parties are to discuss the terms of disclosure, and if necessary, a VMR conference will be arranged. Costs of the application are to be paid by the plaintiffs, with specific deadlines set for the filing of memoranda if issues arise between the parties.

Orders