Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd - [2012] NZHC 2398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-007762 [2012] NZHC 2398

UNDER the Copyright Act 1994

BETWEEN CARL JAMES PETERSON Plaintiff

ANDLUCAS MILL PTY LTD First Defendant

ANDREX CAMERON LUCAS Second Defendant

ANDKATICA LUCAS Third Defendant

ANDWARREN GEOFFREY LUCAS Fourth Defendant

ANDJENNIFER MARGARET LUCAS (DISCONTINUED)
Fifth Defendant

ANDGEOFFREY WILFRED LUCAS Sixth Defendant

ANDDOLORES VIVIENNE LUCAS Seventh Defendant

CIV-2011-404-007543

UNDER THE Patents Act 1953
IN THE MATTER of an application to revoke claims 7-19
of Lucas New Zealand patent No. 282742

BETWEEN C J PETERSON Applicant
ANDLUCAS MILL PTY LTD First Respondent
ANDREX CAMERON LUCAS Second Respondent

PETERSON V LUCAS HC AK CIV-2009-404-007762 [17 September 2012]

CIV-2001-404-003668

UNDER THE Patents Act 1953
IN THE MATTER of New Zealand Letters Patent No
282742

BETWEEN REX CAMERON LUCAS First Plaintiff

AND G W LUCAS & SONS PTY LTD (now
LUCAS MILL) Second Plaintiff

ANDPETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION) First Defendant

ANDCARL JAMES PETERSON Second Defendant

Hearing: 22 June 2012

Appearances: Plaintiff in person
T J Walker and J C Dickson for the Defendants

Judgment: 17 September 2012

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 September 2012 at 12.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: T J Walker, Auckland: Tracey.walker@simpsongrierson.com
J C Dickson, Auckland: joanne.dickson@simpsongrierson.com
J K Gorman, Wellington: Jessica.gorman@crownlaw.govt.nz

Copy to: C J Peterson: cpetenow54@hotmail.co.nz

[1] Since early 1999, Mr Peterson and the Lucas parties have been pursuing claims and counterclaims against each other in respect of the intellectual property rights to various sawmills. The Lucas parties claim that these proceedings have been fully and finally settled by a settlement agreement and should therefore be struck out. Mr Peterson disagrees. He says that he has cancelled or avoided the settlement agreement.

[2] The Lucas parties applied to strike out Mr Peterson’s claims in the copyright proceeding[1] on the basis of the settlement agreement. Bell AJ ruled that the settlement agreement was binding on the parties. He did not strike out the proceeding but adjourned the application to enable the settlement to be implemented.

[1] CIV-2009-404-007762.

[3] Mr Peterson applies to review this decision. He claims that the settlement agreement is not enforceable because it was an unconscionable bargain procured in bad faith by misrepresentation and duress and in circumstances amounting to undue influence. Mr Peterson argues that the Judge was wrong to summarily dismiss these contentions as being unarguable.

[4] The Lucas parties also apply to review the decision arguing that indemnity or increased costs should have been awarded rather than 2B costs.

[5] The Lucas parties further apply for an order striking out Mr Peterson’s claims in the patent proceeding[2] and a separate proceeding brought by Mr Peterson in November 2011 to revoke the Lucas patent (the revocation of patent proceeding).[3]
These applications are also based on the settlement agreement. Mr Peterson cross applies for summary judgment on the revocation of patent proceeding.

[2] CIV-2001-404-003668.

[3] CIV-2011-404-007543.

[6] It would be an abuse of process…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 2398
Decision Date: 17 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peterson v Lucas Mill Pty Ltd involves multiple parties, including Carl James Peterson and various entities and individuals associated with Lucas Mill, engaged in disputes over intellectual property rights related to sawmills. The Lucas parties claim that all disputes have been settled by a settlement agreement and seek to have Peterson's claims struck out. Peterson, however, contests the enforceability of the settlement agreement, arguing it was procured through duress, misrepresentation, and undue influence. He also argues that the agreement does not prevent him from pursuing a separate proceeding to revoke a patent in the public interest. The Lucas parties, in turn, argue for indemnity or increased costs instead of the 2B costs awarded, and seek to have Peterson's claims in additional proceedings struck out based on the settlement agreement.

The central legal issues revolve around whether Peterson's claims of duress, undue influence, and misrepresentation render the settlement agreement unenforceable, and whether the settlement agreement precludes Peterson from pursuing the revocation of patent proceeding. Additionally, the court considered whether the Associate Judge was correct in not awarding indemnity or increased costs to the Lucas parties.

The court found that Peterson was not arguably entitled to avoid the settlement agreement based on duress, as his own evidence did not support the claim that the threats made by the Lucas parties were illegitimate. Similarly, the claim of undue influence failed as Peterson did not repose trust in the Lucas parties, and the only basis for undue influence—improper pressure through unlawful threats—was also rejected due to the same reasons as the duress claim. The misrepresentation argument was dismissed as the written record prepared by the solicitors could not have induced the initial verbal agreement. Lastly, the court held that the settlement agreement did prevent Peterson from pursuing the revocation of patent proceeding, despite the public interest aspect and consent from the Attorney-General.

The court also declined to interfere with the Associate Judge's decision to award 2B costs, finding no improper or unreasonable conduct by Peterson in contesting the enforceability of the settlement agreement.

The final orders dismissed Peterson's and the Lucas parties' applications to review the judgment, struck out the copyright, patent, and revocation of patent proceedings, and directed that any application for costs should be made within a specified timeframe.

Orders