NZX Ltd v Ralec Commodities Pty Ltd

[2015] NZHC 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2011-485-1299 [2015] NZHC 241

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:

28 and 29 January 2015

Counsel:

B R Latimour, B M Cash and J A Ruddell for plaintiff/counterclaim defendants

T J North SC, J K Scragg and B D A Collins for defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs

Judgment:

23 February 2015

NZX LTD v RALEC COMMODITIES PTY LTD [2015] NZHC 241 [23 February 2015]

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Contents

A      RALEC APPLICATIONS

Application to remove confidentiality constraints imposed by NZX ............................................ [3] The approach to inspection of confidential documents .................................................................. [6] Documents relating to individual employees/contractors ............................................................ [11] Commercially sensitive documents in respect of NZX’s business ................................................. [23] Pre-requisites for disclosure of NZX confidential documents to experts ...................................... [37]

Challenge to extent of redactions in NZX discovered documents ............................................... [41] Challenge to NZX claim to privilege in parts of Ms Newsome’s notes ....................................... [53] NZX Holdings No 4 Limited – documents to be separately identified?...................................... [59] Non-disclosure of Mr Weldon’s notebooks.................................................................................... [64] Miscellaneous discovery concerns.................................................................................................. [72] NZX constraining Ralec’s contact with potential witnesses ........................................................ [76] B      NZX APPLICATIONS

Challenge to Ralec’s claims to litigation privilege ........................................................................ [82]

Claim that Ralec has waived privilege on certain topics ........................................................... [103] Re Thundacats/no disputes representation ................................................................................. [108] Negotiation of integration (alliance) agreement .........................................................................[112] Advice on negotiating content of documents with NZX ...............................................................[114]

Legal advice on deteriorating relationship between Ralec and NZX, and the resignation of

Mr Thomas ..................................................................................................................................[119] Application for order that Ralec provide discovery of hard copy documents ......................... [121] Application for particular discovery re “gaps” and “missing documents” .............................. [125] Application for increased/further security for costs on the counterclaims............................... [130] Summary ........................................................................................................................................ [138] Costs ............................................................................................................................................... [140]

[1]      My  last  interlocutory  judgment  in  these  proceedings  was  delivered  on

6 March 2014.1   There, I sufficiently described the proceedings as involving claims by the plaintiff arising out of its purchase of businesses (based in Australia) from the defendants.  There are also counterclaims by the defendants for alleged deficiencies by the counterclaim defendants in their post-acquisition operation of the businesses that are said to have compromised the prospects of the defendants earning additional consideration for their sale.   As in my earlier judgment, I will refer to the plaintiff/counterclaim defendants as NZX, and to the defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs as Ralec.

[2]      Somewhat more than three and a half years after the proceedings were commenced, the parties are still some distance from completing inspection of each other’s documents, and resolving residual issues in respect of the scope and terms for provision of discovery and inspection.  This judgment deals for the most part with numerous applications affecting the scope and manner of discovery, and…