Peterson v Lucas - [2015] NZHC 721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002695 [2015] NZHC 721

BETWEEN
CARL JAMES PETERSON

Plaintiff

AND

WARREN GEOFFREY LUCAS Defendant

Hearing: 14 April 2015

Counsel::

Plaintiff in person
J Dickson and J Cooke for Defendant

Judgment:

24 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J Recalled and reissued on 7 May 2015

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2015 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Simpson Grierson, Auckland

PETERSON v LUCAS [2015] NZHC 721 [24 April 2015]

Introduction

[1] In October 2014, the plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of a statement of claim for damages for groundless threats of copyright infringement under s 34 of the Designs Act. The defendant filed a statement of defence which, having reviewed a history of litigation, pleaded issue estoppel, saying that the plaintiff is attempting to relitigate issues/disputes that had been finally determined by the High Court and/or Court of Appeal as between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[2] The defendant also filed with the statement of defence an application for summary judgment against the plaintiff or, alternatively, an order striking out the plaintiff’s claims or, in the alternative, security for costs.

[3] The plaintiff responded with an interlocutory application for summary judgment against the defendant, an order for damages as applied for or an enquiry into damages or a recall of two decisions, Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd & ors1 by
Bell AJ and its confirmation by Gilberts J.2

History

[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,3 and in the Court of Appeal in 2005.4
Mr Peterson succeeded in the Supreme Court in 2006.5 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:

1      Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd & ors [2012] NZHC 1101, Bell AJ.
2      Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd & ors [2012] NZHC 2830.
3      Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd [2003] 3 NZLR 361 (HC).
4      Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd v Lucas CA64/03, 4 March 2005.
5      Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd v Lucas [006] NZSC 20, [2006] 3 NZLR 721.

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…

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] NZHC 721
Case: [2015] NZHC 721
Decision Date: 24 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peterson v Lucas [2015] NZHC 721 is a case concerning a long-standing dispute between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lucas. The dispute started in the late 1990s, 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 litigation continued over the years, with various decisions made by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. 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. The matter came again before the High Court in March 2012, based on a dispute as to an alleged settlement agreement arising out of a telephone call between Mr. Warren Lucas and Mr. Peterson in the afternoon of 3 October 2011. In October 2014, Mr. Peterson commenced proceedings by way of a statement of claim for damages for groundless threats of copyright infringement under s 34 of the Designs Act. The defendant filed a statement of defence, pleading issue estoppel and an application for summary judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded with an interlocutory application for summary judgment against the defendant. The court had to decide whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and if issue estoppel applied. The court found that the principle of issue estoppel applied as these issues were distinctly put in issue by Mr. Peterson and there were decisions against him on it. The court concluded that Mr. Peterson's latest claim arose out of precisely the same events that had been addressed in earlier litigation and that it was an abuse of the process. The statement of claim was struck out. The court reserved the question of costs.

Orders