Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie - [2013] NZHC 2755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-003178 [2013] NZHC 2755

BETWEEN PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDMALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Defendant

ANTHONY JOSEPH 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

CIV-2011-404-000474

BETWEEN ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN First Plaintiff

ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN and JENNIFER ANNE REGAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE PICCADILLY TRUST
Second Plaintiffs

ANDROBERT GILL First Defendant

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LIMITED Second Defendant

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LTD v BEATTIE & ORS [2013] NZHC 2755 [22 October 2013]

B A PARTNERS LIMITED Third Defendant

DIGITAL PARTNERS LIMITED Fourth Defendant

CPG YORK LIMITED Fifth Defendant

BRAND ADVANTAGE MEASUREMENT AND CONSULTING LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

DIGITAL PARTNERS (NZ) LIMITED Seventh Defendant

Hearing: 19 August 2013

Appearances: M D Pascariu and J A Harrop for Plaintiff in first proceeding J R Eichelbaum for First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants in first proceeding
G S Dunphy for Sixth Defendant in first proceeding
J R Eichelbaum for Plaintiffs in second proceeding
M D Pascariu and J A Harrop for First to Seventh Defendants in second proceeding

Judgment: 22 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Ellis on 22 October 2013 at 11.00 am
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date...............................

[1] The first to fifth defendants seek to have the claims brought against them by Premier Events Group Limited (PEG) struck out on the grounds that they are an abuse of process. The abuse of process contention is founded on the existence of parallel proceedings between themselves, a company called BA Partners Limited (BAP) and PEG that are presently before the Employment Court.1 Essentially the first and second defendants say that they are improperly being vexed with the same matters twice.

Background

[2] PEG and BA Partners Limited (BAP) are associated companies which form part of the Brand Advantage and Premier Group of companies (the Group). All the companies in the Group were and are controlled by Mr Robert Gill and were variously involved in the media, advertising, brand development and marketing industries. Prior to 2010 the Group was run by Mr Gill effectively in partnership with the second defendant, Mr Regan, who was also (either personally or through entities associated with him) a minority shareholder in a number of the companies in the Group.

[3] More particularly, and insofar as PEG is concerned:

(a) The company was incorporated in June 2003. It was (and is still) owned 80 per cent by Gill interests and 20 per cent by Regan interests;

(b)Mr Beattie (the first defendant) was a director from the date of incorporation until December 2009;

(c) Mr Regan was a director from November 2003 until 1 April 2010; (d) Mr Gill has been a director since November 2003; and
(e) Mr Beattie was also employed as the managing director of PEG from

June 2006 until 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Premier Events Group Ltd 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: [2013] NZHC 2755
Decision Date: 22 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Premier Events Group Limited (PEG) brought proceedings against Malcolm Beattie, Anthony Regan, BA Partners Limited, Parnell Partners Group Limited, Carthan Global Limited (formerly Carthan Global LLP), and Carthan Tours Inc. The defendants sought to have the claims against them struck out on the grounds that they were an abuse of process, alleging that they were being vexed twice in the same matter due to parallel proceedings in the Employment Court. The legal issues involved the doctrine of abuse of process and whether the existence of parallel jurisdictions justified separate proceedings. Justice Ellis held that the defendants were not being twice vexed in the relevant sense, as the nature and variety of the claims against them required separate proceedings in different courts. The Court found that there were no grounds to strike out the proceedings but ordered that the proceedings be stayed pending the release of the Employment Court decision. This decision aimed to prevent potential double recovery of damages and ensure fairness and finality in the proceedings.

Orders