Petersons Global Sales Ltd v Peterson - [2010] NZCA 56

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA14/2010
[2010] NZCA 56
BETWEENPETERSONS GLOBAL SALES LIMITED
First Appellant
ANDP&B ENGINEERING LTD
Second Appellant

ANDCARL JAMES PETERSON
First Respondent
ANDKARL JACOB PETERSON
Second Respondent

Hearing:16 February 2010

Court:O'Regan, Arnold and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:K T Browne for Appellants
C J Peterson in Person

Judgment:5 March 2010 at 12.30pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for interim relief is declined.
B        The application for leave to appeal is declined.
C       The applicants must pay the respondents their usual disbursements.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Baragwanath J)
Nature of the application
[1]       The applicant companies seek leave under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to appeal against a decision of the Employment Court in favour of the respondents Carl James Peterson (Carl) and his son Karl Jacob Peterson (Jake). They also seek interim relief or an order under s 215 referring the case back to the Employment Court to restore an order of the Employment Relations Authority, set aside by the Employment Court, to restrain the respondents’ use of intellectual property claimed by the applicants.
[2]       By s 214(1) an appeal to this Court lies only on the ground that the decision of the Employment Court was wrong in law. By subs (3) leave may be given only if the question of law is one that, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.
[3]       The shareholder and director of the first applicant, Petersons Global Sales Limited (PGSL), is Kerris Browne, the daughter of Carl and the sister of Jake. Her husband is the shareholder and director of the second applicant, P&B Engineering Limited (P & B).
[4]       The applicants, who sought to appear by Mrs Browne, did not initially appreciate that this Court has no jurisdiction save as to errors of law. At a telephone conference on 18 December 2009 they were both advised of that fact. They now contend that while the respondents were employed by the applicants they infringed intellectual property, which the applicants claim is theirs, by its use in the design of a sawmill which they built. They submit that Chief Judge Colgan erred in law in rejecting their claims and by setting aside the decision of the Employment Relations Authority in their favour.
Background
[5]       Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd (PPSSL) was originally owned by Carl. In Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd, at the conclusion of heavy patent litigation, the Supreme Court overturned decisions of the High Court and this Court which had been unfavourable to PPSSL.[1] But the success came too late for the company which in March 2005 ceased trading. Some 47 per cent of the shareholding had by then passed to Mrs Browne and her husband.
[1]      Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 721.
[6]       In November 2003 PPSSL had entered into a contract (“the 2003 agreement”) with…

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 Petersons Global Sales Ltd v Peterson 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: [2010] NZCA 56
Decision Date: 5 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application from Petersons Global Sales Limited and P&B Engineering Ltd against Carl James Peterson and Karl Jacob Peterson. The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Court which had ruled in favour of the respondents. The applicants claimed that the respondents had infringed their intellectual property during the design of a sawmill they built. The applicants also sought interim relief to refer the case back to the Employment Court to reinstate an order of the Employment Relations Authority that restrained the respondents from using the intellectual property. The legal issues for the Court to decide included whether the Employment Court had correctly construed the 2003 agreement between the parties, and whether the applicants were entitled to the intellectual property created by the respondents during their employment. The Court found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate an arguable error of law that met the criteria for an appeal under section 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the factual findings of the Employment Court. The application for leave to appeal and the application for interim relief were dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' disbursements.

Orders