Rock Solid Holdings Limited v Simmons - [2020] NZHC 3487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1043

[2020] NZHC 3487

BETWEEN
ROCK SOLID HOLDINGS LIMITED

First applicant

AND

PETER JOHN BISHOP

Second applicant

AND

FIELDCO LIMITED

Third applicant

AND

BRADEN MATTHEW SIMMONS

Respondent

Hearing: 9 December 2020

Appearances:

Z G Kennedy and H M Jaques for the applicants A J B Holmes for the respondent

Judgment:

22 December 2020

Reissued:

23 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

(Re-issued to correct date in paragraph [8])

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 22 December at 10.00am.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
A J B Holmes, Barrister, Auckland Z G Kennedy, Barrister, Auckland Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland MinterEllisRuddWatts, Auckland

ROCK SOLID HOLDINGS LTD v SIMMONS [2020] NZHC 3487 [22 December 2020]

Context

[1] Mr Braden Simmons, the defendant, used to be employed by the first plaintiff, known as Euroclass. The plaintiffs allege that Mr Simmons attempted to access and did access their computer systems without authorisation. They say the computer systems hold commercially sensitive, intensely private, and confidential financial and strategic information relating to the first plaintiff, to individual members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, and associated entities. Two people have independently told the plaintiffs that Mr Simmons said he had accessed the systems. There is CCTV evidence of his car parking nearby Euroclass’ premises at a time unauthorised access appeared to be attempted. The plaintiffs sue Mr Simmons for three causes of action for breach of confidence and one of intrusion upon seclusion.

[2] The plaintiffs were granted orders to search Mr Simmons’ premises, which produced one document they say is evidence of access to Euroclass’ computer systems. Three more documents are also at issue. The first and second plaintiffs apply for orders requiring Mr Simmons to answer 18 interrogatories. Mr Simmons has sworn two affidavits. In the first, he asserted he had not “hacked” Euroclass’ computer systems. In response to the plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with that, he swore a second affidavit saying, among other things:1
To avoid confusion, I wish to restate clearly that I have not done what is alleged by any interpretation, using any terminology. I have not accessed, seen, read, downloaded, or shared the Commercially Sensitive Documents, Personal Information, and Financial and Strategic Information. I have not accessed or deleted any of the Applicants’ logs files or records. I have not claimed to any person that I have accessed, seen, read, downloaded, or shared the Commercially Sensitive Documents, Personal Information, Financial and Strategic Information.

[3] The plaintiffs have since amended their statement of claim. They consider Mr Simmons has answered some interrogatories (1(a) ,1(c), 11, 16, 17 and 18). They pursue answers to the others.

1 Second Affidavit of Braden Mathew Simmons, 30 October 2020, at [4].

Interrogatories

[4] Under r 8.38 of the High Court Rules 2016, a judge may order any party to file and serve on any other party a statement in answer…

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.

Continue reading Rock Solid Holdings Limited v Simmons

Details

AGLC: Rock Solid Holdings Limited v Simmons [2020] NZHC 3487
Case: [2020] NZHC 3487
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff, Rock Solid Holdings Limited, was entitled to orders requiring the defendant, Braden Matthew Simmons, to answer 18 interrogatories in relation to allegations of unauthorised access to the plaintiff’s computer systems. The plaintiff alleged that Simmons had attempted to access their computer systems without authorisation, which contained commercially sensitive, intensely private, and confidential financial and strategic information. The plaintiff sought to compel Simmons to answer interrogatories concerning his knowledge of the plaintiff's computer systems, his attempts to access these systems, and his possession of any related documents. Simmons opposed the application on the grounds that the interrogatories were vexatious, oppressive, and not relevant to the issues in the case.

The court had to decide whether the interrogatories were relevant to the issues in the amended statement of claim, and if they were necessary to establish the key facts of the case. The court also had to determine if the interrogatories were being used as a fishing expedition or if they were necessary to establish Simmons' credibility. The court considered the interrogatories in four groups and found that they were relevant and not vexatious or oppressive, as they could provide circumstantial evidence to whether Simmons made certain sorts of attempts to access the systems. The court held that Simmons should answer interrogatories one to 10 and 12 to 15 within five working days of the date of the judgment.

The court found that the interrogatories were relevant and relatively limited and ordered Simmons to answer them within the specified timeframe. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs and against Simmons on a 2B basis, meaning that Simmons was to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the proceeding. The court's decision was based on the need to establish the key facts of the case and to establish Simmons' credibility. The court held that the interrogatories were not vexatious or oppressive and were necessary to establish the key facts of the case. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the issues and the evidence presented by both parties.

Orders