Premier Events Group Limited v Beattie - [2015] NZHC 2428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-003178 [2015] NZHC 2428

BETWEEN
PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Defendant

ANTHONY JOESPH REGAN Second Defendant

CT NZ GROUP LIMITED (previously known as CARTAN GLOBAL LIMITED) Third Defendant

PARNELL PARTNERS GROUP LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

CARTAN GLOBAL LLP Fifth Defendant

CARTAN TOURS, INC Sixth Defendant

Hearing: 15 September 2015

Appearances:

Z Kennedy and J Harrop for the Plaintiff
J Eichelbaum for the First to Fifth Defendants
R Rose for the Sixth Defendant

Judgment:

6 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J [As to security for costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED v BEATTIE & ORS [2015] NZHC 2428 [6 October 2015]

Introduction

[1] This is a proceeding of some antiquity. It does not currently have a trial date. I have before me an amended application, dated 17 June 2015, by the first to fifth defendants for:

(a) Security for costs;

(b) An enquiry into the plaintiff’s funding arrangements;

(c) An order that $500,000, paid into Court in 2010, be returned to the first to fifth defendants; and

(d)An order that the proceedings be struck out or stayed until all costs awards made against the plaintiff or its privies in the Employment Court are paid in full.

[2] I also have before me an application, dated 26 June 2015, by the sixth defendant for:

(a) Additional security for costs;

(b)An order that the plaintiff produce its litigation funding agreement for a decision about approval of the litigation funder and the funding agreement’s terms;

(c) An order that the plaintiff produce its contingency fee agreement for review; and

(d)An order that the proceedings be stayed until the Court approves the plaintiff’s litigation funding arrangements and the plaintiff gives security for the specified sum.

[3] At the outset of a one day hearing of the applications on 15 September 2015, it was agreed I should deal just with security for costs and leave the other issues for a

later date, if they were to be pursued. Counsel for the first to fifth defendants also filed a memorandum seeking leave to file an updating affidavit rebutting new points raised by the plaintiff, but I decline to grant leave and have not taken the draft updating affidavit into account.

Factual background

[4] On 27 May 2010, the plaintiff, Premier Events Group Limited (Premier Events) issued substantive proceedings against two of its former directions, Messrs Beattie and Regan, and three corporate entities they had established, as the first to fifth defendants. Premier Events alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against Messrs Beattie and Regan. As against Mr Beattie, it also alleges a breach of a restraint of trade provision. As against the third, fourth and fifth defendants, it alleges misuse of confidential information.

[5] On 23 November 2010 orders were made by consent, as part of a negotiated agreement between the…

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 Premier Events Group Limited v Beattie 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: [2015] NZHC 2428
Decision Date: 6 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Premier Events Group Limited v Beattie, the High Court of New Zealand considered applications for security for costs by the first to fifth defendants and the sixth defendant. The first to fifth defendants sought security for costs of $120,000, with an additional $30,000 for expert accounting evidence, while the sixth defendant sought an additional $200,000 in security. The Court assessed the strength and weaknesses of the plaintiff's claim, considering the substantial weakening of its claim due to the Employment Court's decision, and the likelihood of an award of costs preventing the plaintiff from pursuing its claim. The Court also evaluated whether there was a reasonable probability that the plaintiff's impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' actions and whether there was a delay in bringing the application for security for costs. Ultimately, the Court ordered Premier Events to pay $150,000 in security for costs in favour of the first to fifth defendants and an additional $75,000 in security for costs in favour of the sixth defendant. The Court also allowed the first to fifth defendants and the sixth defendant to seek their reasonable costs and disbursements on this application on a 2B basis.

Orders