PropertyIQ NZ Ltd v Vicelich - [2012] NZHC 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-003693 [2012] NZHC 2016

BETWEEN PROPERTYIQ NZ LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDCARMEN VICELICH First Defendant

ANDDATA INSIGHT LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: 6 August 2012

Counsel: A V Foote for the Plaintiff
R S Teirney for the Defendants

Judgment: 13 August 2012

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Jurisdiction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 13 August 2012 at 11.30 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: R S Teirney P O Box 56501 Dominion Road Auckland 1446 for the Defendants

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

Copy To: Smith and Partners (G P Muller) P O Box 104065 Lincoln North
Waitakere 0654 (DX DP92005)

PROPERTYIQ NZ LTD v VICELICH and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-003693 [13 August 2012]

[1] The plaintiff, PropertyIQ NZ Limited (PropertyIQ), alleges that the defendants have unlawfully acquired 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 application is opposed.

[2] The application to this Court raises jurisdictional issues, as well as the usual issues regarding the merits of an application for interim injunctive relief.

[3] The parties have taken steps since the hearing of the application to identify the information that they agree is confidential and that which remains in dispute. While the parties are working towards reaching a measure of agreement on this topic, I consider that it will be of assistance to them if I provide them with an interim judgment on the jurisdictional question.

Jurisdiction

[4] The first defendant (Ms Vicelich) was an employee of PropertyIQ. Later, for a brief period of time, either she or the second defendant, Data Insight Limited (Data Insight), was contracted by PropertyIQ to perform services for it. Ms Vicelich is the sole director of Data Insight and she holds half the shares in that company.

[5] The confidential information that Ms Vicelich obtained from PropertyIQ was largely obtained while she was employed by the company. Both defendants contend, therefore, that the allegations that PropertyIQ make arise from, or are directly related to the employment relationship that then existed; hence, pursuant to s 161(1)(r) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority. So this Court has no authority to hear and determine the application.

[6] PropertyIQ contends that Ms Vicelich owes it fiduciary obligations, as well as being liable for breach of confidence and that Ms Vicelich’s potential liability under these causes of action is unaffected by s 161(1)(r). PropertyIQ also contends that part of its claim is against Ms Vicelich as an independent contractor, as well as the

company over which she has control; thus, the inclusion of these claims bring the proceeding within the jurisdiction of this Court, as such claims cannot be…

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 Ltd 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 2016
Decision Date: 13 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

PropertyIQ NZ Limited sought to restrain the defendants, Carmen Vicelich and Data Insight Limited, from misusing its confidential information. The defendants argued that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, as the alleged misuse of information occurred during Ms Vicelich's employment with PropertyIQ. The court considered the jurisdictional issue, focusing on whether the claims were essentially employment-related or related to broader rights or interests. The court found that the claims against Ms Vicelich, who was both a former employee and a party to the proceedings through her company, were not solely employment-related. The nature of the claims, including breach of confidence and fiduciary duties, fell outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims and grant the injunctive relief sought by PropertyIQ.

The court's decision hinged on distinguishing between claims that originate in an employment relationship and those that relate to broader rights or interests. The reasoning in previous cases, such as BDM Grange Ltd v Parker and Pain Management Systems (NZ) Ltd v McCallum, supported the view that this court has jurisdiction over claims that are not strictly employment-related. The court concluded that since part of the claim was against a party outside the employment relationship, it was appropriate for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the entire proceeding. This decision prevents a jurisdictional void and ensures that PropertyIQ can seek redress in an appropriate forum.

Orders