NZX Ltd v Ralec Commodities Pty Ltd

[2016] NZHC 799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2011-485-1299 [2016] NZHC 799

BETWEEN

NZX LIMITED

Plaintiff/First Counterclaim Defendant

AND

RALEC COMMODITIES PTY LIMITED First Defendant/First Counterclaim Plaintiff

RALEC INTERACTIVE PTY LIMITED Second Defendant/Second Counterclaim Plaintiff

GRANT DAVIS THOMAS Third Defendant

GRANT THOMAS NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

DOMINIC LUKE PYM Fifth Defendant

PYM FAMILY PTY LIMITED Sixth Defendant

NZX HOLDING NO 4 LIMITED Second Counterclaim Defendant

MARK RHYS WELDON Third Counterclaim Defendant

Hearing:	19 April 2016
Counsel:	D J Cooper and B M Cash for plaintiff/counterclaim defendants T J North QC, J K Scragg, C R Gubb and T W McKeown for defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs
Judgment:	27 April 2016

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

NZX LTD v RALEC COMMODITIES PTY LTD [2016] NZHC 799 [27 April 2016]

Contents

Evidence on behalf of Ralec from subpoenaed witnesses............................................................... [2] The test for granting leave ................................................................................................................ [5] Australian subpoenaed witnesses ................................................................................................... [24] James Pierce................................................................................................................................. [26] Justin French ................................................................................................................................ [32] Marcus Crafter ............................................................................................................................. [38] Patrick O’Shannassy .................................................................................................................... [41] Nigel Williams .............................................................................................................................. [47] French and Crafter – is subpoenaed evidence from them necessary? ........................................ [54] New Zealand subpoenaed witnesses .............................................................................................. [59] The warned witnesses ................................................................................................................... [59] Kim Peacock............................................................................................................................ [60] Leanne Walker ......................................................................................................................... [65]

Nikita Ranchhod ...................................................................................................................... [69] Stacey Campbell ...................................................................................................................... [73] Witnesses not warned ................................................................................................................... [76] Geoff Brown ............................................................................................................................ [79] Erich Livengood ...................................................................................................................... [84] Fiona Mackenzie...................................................................................................................... [87] Saki Hannah............................................................................................................................. [89]

Leave to adduce evidence by AVL.................................................................................................. [94] Leave to amend statement of claim................................................................................................ [98] Trial directions............................................................................................................................... [102] Costs on the applications dealt with in this judgment ................................................................. [111] Reference to the Rules Committee ................................................................................................[112]

[1]      This judgment deals with further pre-trial issues on which the parties could not agree.   During a full half day’s argument, counsel referred me to extensive materials claimed to be important to the decisions I had to make.   That task took substantially  longer  than  I  anticipated,  so  on  22 April  2016  I  issued  a  minute conveying my decisions.  I now provide my reasons for those decisions.

Evidence on behalf of Ralec from subpoenaed witnesses

[2]      Ralec proposes to call oral evidence from a significant number of witnesses appearing pursuant to subpoena, and for whom no brief of evidence has been exchanged.   NZX has opposed that occurring and I heard an initial exchange of views about this prospect in a telephone conference on 23 March 2016.  Warnings have been conveyed on behalf of NZX to a number of these proposed witnesses that they should not risk making any disclosures that would breach on-going confidentiality obligations.  (As previously, I refer to those communications as the Bell Gully warning letters.) Ralec has cited these warnings as the rationale for those witnesses not being prepared to volunteer a brief.

[3]      To resolve these differences, I directed that Ralec was to disclose the attempts it had made to obtain a brief from each of the proposed subpoenaed witnesses, and an  exhaustive  list  of  the  topics  Ralec  considered  the  proposed  witnesses  could address in their evidence, including the discovered documents that Ralec intended to put to them.…