PropertyIQ NZ Limited v Vicelich - [2012] NZHC 2640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-003693 [2012] NZHC 2640

BETWEEN PROPERTYIQ NZ LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDCARMEN VICELICH First Defendant

ANDDATA INSIGHT LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: 6 August 2012;
12 and 21 September 2012 (On the Papers
(Plaintiff's Submissions)); and
17 and 24 September 2012 (On the Papers) Defendant's Submissions))

Counsel: A V Foote for the Plaintiff
R S Teirney for the Defendants (6 August 2012)
E St John for the Defendants (17 September 2012) Judgment: 11 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Merits]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 11 October 2012 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: E St John P O Box 105270 Auckland 1143 for the Defendants

Solicitors: Duncan Cotterill P O Box 5 Christchurch 8140 for the Plaintiff

PROPERTYIQ NZ LTD v VICELICH and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-003693 [11 October 2012]

[1] The plaintiff, PropertyIQ NZ Limited (PropertyIQ), alleges that the defendants have unlawfully acquired and are going to misuse its confidential information. It seeks interim orders of broad effect against them to protect the confidential character of the information and to restrain the defendants from dealing with the information in a way that would benefit them. The defendants deny that they have come into possession of PropertyIQ’s confidential information, let alone that they might misuse it. At present, there are interim orders in place to protect the subject information, pending the disposal of PropertyIQ’s application.

[2] The application to this Court raised jurisdictional issues, as well as the usual issues regarding the merits of an application for interim injunctive relief. On
13 August 2012, I delivered an interim judgment (PropertyIQ NZ Ltd v Vicelich and Anor HC Auckland CIV-2012-404-3693, 13 August 2012) in which I found that this Court has jurisdiction to determine PropertyIQ’s claim. The parties were then given further time to file additional submissions on the merits of PropertyIQ’s application for interim relief. Having received and considered those submissions, I now deliver judgment on the outstanding issues.

Background facts

[3] PropertyIQ provides property and land information, as well as other services regarding these subjects, to clients who include central and local government, other public bodies, corporate entities, banking, financial and insurance services, property professionals, property investors, homebuyers and sellers in New Zealand. Its shareholding is held by Quotable Value Limited (Quotable Value), which is a state owned enterprise that carries on the business of land valuation in New Zealand, and RP Data Limited (RP Data), which is the largest supplier of property information and analytic services in Australia. The range of services that PropertyIQ provides includes risk management of property financing and insurance. As part of its work, it collates and manages “big data”. This is a term that PropertyIQ uses to refer to computerised information (obtained from multiple sources) that its computer systems use to search for causative and correlative relationships that are not readily perceived by human actors. These electronic analyses enable…

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 PropertyIQ NZ Limited v Vicelich 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 2640
Decision Date: 11 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PropertyIQ NZ Limited v Vicelich involved a dispute over the alleged unlawful acquisition and intended misuse of confidential information by the defendants. PropertyIQ, a provider of property and land information services, alleged that Ms Vicelich, a former senior employee, and Data Insight Limited, a company she had an interest in, had unlawfully acquired and intended to misuse its confidential information. PropertyIQ sought interim injunctive relief to protect the confidential character of the information and to restrain the defendants from using it. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that any information in their possession was not confidential. The legal issues before the court were whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and, if so, whether interim injunctive relief should be granted based on the merits of the case.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and proceeded to consider the merits of the application for interim relief. The court identified certain information that both parties agreed was confidential and other information that was not. The court also identified a group of documents that were in dispute, with PropertyIQ claiming they were confidential and Ms Vicelich arguing they were not. The court considered the nature of the disputed information and concluded that there were seriously arguable grounds for finding that it was confidential. The court also found that Ms Vicelich had no legitimate reason for retaining the information after leaving PropertyIQ. Balancing the convenience, the court found that the balance weighed in favour of granting interim relief as there was a risk of irreparable damage to PropertyIQ if the information was used.

The court granted interim relief in the form of orders restraining the defendants from using, divulging, disclosing, publishing, or reproducing any confidential information of PropertyIQ. The orders were to last until the end of the day on 11 March 2013, which was the allocated trial date of the proceeding, or until further order of the court. The court also noted that granting the interim injunction did not amount to effectively determining matters, as the breach of confidence claim had not been finally determined and there were still issues of breach of fiduciary duty, restraint of trade, and damages to be considered substantively.

Orders