Premier Events Group Limited v Beattie

[2015] NZHC 1129

IN THE HIGH COURTOF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-3178 [2015] NZHC 1129

BETWEEN

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Defendant

ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN Second Defendant

Continued over page

Hearing:

30 March 2015.  Further material received 7 April and 15 May

2015.

Appearances:

Z G Kennedy and M D Pascariu for the Plaintiff
J Eichelbaum for the First to Fifth Defendants
R A Rose for the Sixth Defendant

Judgment:

25 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 May 2015 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:

Z G Kennedy, Minter Ellison Rudd Wats, Auckland

M D Pascariu, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
J Eichelbaun, Barrister, Auckland

G Lichfield, Franklin Law, Pukekohe

R A rose, Bell Gully, Auckland

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED v BEATTIE [2015] NZHC 1129 [25 May 2015]

C T 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

[1]      These proceedings were stayed by me on 22 October 2013 as between the plaintiff (PEG) and the first to fifth defendants (the defendants) pending the release of a much-awaited Employment Court decision in ARC 22/11.  On 5 December 2103 the proceedings were also stayed as against the sixth defendant (Cartan) pending payment by PEG of security for costs.

[2]      The Employment Court decision was issued on 17 December 2014.1    The plaintiff has recently paid the security ordered.  Accordingly the plaintiff seeks now to have the stays lifted.  That was not opposed by Cartan, but was opposed by the other defendants.   The principal basis for that opposition was that matters in the Employment Court had not finally been resolved; the April decision related only to liability and liquidated damages; issues of unliquidated damages remained at large. In the alternative, the defendants have also filed an application for security for costs.

[3]      The application to lift the stay was heard by me on 17 December 2014.  The defendants had not at that point responded to the application for security, as it had been filed while the proceedings were stayed.  In any event, it was not ready to be heard.

[4]      I  was  advised  at  the  hearing  that  PEG  had  effectively  made  a  cross- application in the Employment Court for a stay of the remainder of the proceedings there, and that there was to be a telephone conference about that the next day. Obviously, the outcome of that application would be highly relevant to, if not determinative of, the cross-application for stay in this Court.

[5]      On 7 April I was forwarded a minute from the Employment Court in which the learned Chief Judge Colgan indicated his hope that a decision on PEG’s stay application would be released by the end of the month.  The decision was, in fact, delivered on 14 May 2015.   In it, after thoroughly canvassing the relevant issues,

Chief Judge Colgan granted the defendants’ application for stay.2     His principal

reason for doing so was that to deny the stay would have the effect of requiring PEG

1      Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [2014] NZEmpC 231.

2      Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [2015] NZEmpC 63.

to bring its employment claims to judgment, thus depriving them of their right of election.3    The Judge considered that, while finely balanced, this right outweighed the defendants’ concerns about the delay in bringing all matters to final resolution that might result from reactivating the High Court proceedings.

[6]      In my view, the stay ordered in the Employment Court means that the cross- application  to  lift  the  stay  in  this  Court  must  succeed.    In  case  it  matters,  I respectfully record my agreement with the reasoning of the Chief Judge.  Applied in reverse, and even in the absence of the Employment Court judgment, they would have favoured lifting the stay in this Court.

[7]     Outstanding matters of res judicata and issue estoppel arising from the substantive Employment Court decision will probably need to be reventilated in due course.  Whether the matter does in fact proceed further at all may, however, depend on the pending application for security.   But I will leave that to be dealt with by Wylie J.

[8]      The  stays  ordered  on  22  October  and  15  December  2013  are  lifted accordingly. The Registry is to organise a telephone conference with Wylie J as soon

as practicable in order that necessary timetable directions can be made.

Rebecca Ellis J

3      This was an issue previously canvassed by the Court of Appeal in Beattie v Premier Events

Group Ltd [2014] NZCA 184; (2014) 11 NZELR 755.