Legal Research
Cases
Peterson v Lucas

Peterson v Lucas

Case [2015] NZCA 627 18 December 2015

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA295/2015
[2015] NZCA 627

BETWEEN	CARL JAMES PETERSON Appellant
AND	WARREN GEOFFREY LUCAS Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2015
Court:	Winkelmann, Courtney and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person J C Dickson and J N Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2015 at 1 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CThe appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Peterson, has been involved in litigation with the respondent, Mr Lucas, members of the Lucas family, and Lucas-associated business entities since the late 1990s. The litigation has concerned intellectual property issues between the parties. Earlier this year, Fogarty J struck out a claim commenced by Mr Peterson on the grounds that it was an abuse of process, because it was an attempt to re-litigate issues and events that had already been considered and disposed of in earlier litigation.[1] Mr Peterson appeals that judgment on the grounds that Mr Peterson’s new proceeding involved separate and independent causes of action not previously determined by the courts, and so should not have been struck out.

Background

Procedural context

[1]Peterson v Lucas [2015] NZHC 721 [The new proceeding].

The procedural background to this appeal is lengthy, but provides a necessary backdrop to the issues for us to determine. We adopt the summary of part of the procedural history set out in the judgment of Fogarty J as follows:
[4] Mr Peterson and Mr Lucas have been litigating since the late 1990’s. The litigation began with Mr Lucas and his company claiming damages and infringement of a patent for portable sawmills on the part of Mr Peterson and his company. The Lucas family succeeded in the High Court,[2] and in the Court of Appeal in 2005.[3] Mr Peterson succeeded in the Supreme Court in 2006.[4] The particular issue decided was whether Claim 7 of the New Zealand patent claim, the Lucas claim, was invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty and obviousness. The Court held it was so invalid.
[5] The litigation continued. In the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, the Lucas family made an application to amend their patent. Later they gave up and discontinued their proceeding against Mr Peterson and his company in July 2009. The judgment of Priestley J awarding some costs to Mr Peterson records:
To some extent his ultimate victory in the Supreme Court has turned to ashes. The second defendant’s vehicle for commercial activities went into liquidation. His financial losses are, I am sure, considerable.[5]
[6] In November 2009, Mr Peterson commenced personal proceedings alleging infringement of copyright by the defendants. The Lucas family sought security for costs based on Mr Peterson’s likely insolvency. They failed before Associate Judge Doogue but succeeded in the judgment of Woodhouse J reviewing the Associate Judge’s decision.…

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 Peterson v Lucas

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Lucas [2015] NZCA 627
Case: [2015] NZCA 627
Decision Date: 18 December 2015 at 1 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carl James Peterson has been in litigation with Warren Geoffrey Lucas and associated entities since the late 1990s over intellectual property issues. The High Court struck out a claim made by Peterson on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. Peterson appeals on the grounds that his new proceeding involved separate and independent causes of action not previously determined by the courts. The central legal issues in this case are whether the new proceeding constitutes an abuse of process and whether Peterson's claim under the Designs Act has any prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal found that the new proceeding was an abuse of process because it involved re-litigating issues and events that had already been considered and disposed of in earlier litigation. The Court held that the principle of issue estoppel applies, as the critical issues had already been determined in prior proceedings. The Court also found that Peterson's claim under the Designs Act had no prospect of success, as there was no threat to bring proceedings for infringement of the copyright in a registered design. The Court declined Peterson's application to adduce further evidence, finding that the evidence was not fresh or relevant to the issues on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered Peterson to pay the respondent's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders