Rock Solid Holdings v Simmons - [2021] NZHC 2892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-001043

[2021] NZHC 2892

BETWEEN
ROCK SOLID HOLDINGS

First Applicant

PETER JOHN BISHOP
Second Applicant

FIELDCO LIMITED
Third Applicant

AND

BRADEN MATTHEWS SIMMONS

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Appearances:

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

Judgment:

29 October 2021

JUDGMENT No 2 OF PALMER J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

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

ROCK SOLID HOLDINGS v SIMMONS [2021] NZHC 2892 [29 October 2021]

What happened?

[1] The applicants say that the computer systems of a company called Euroclass hold commercially sensitive, intensely private, and confidential financial and strategic information relating to Euroclass, and to individual members and entities associated with the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. In these proceedings, the plaintiffs alleged a former employee, Mr Braden Simmons, attempted to and did access their computer systems without authorisation. They sued for three causes of action for breach of confidence and one of intrusion upon seclusion. They applied for an interlocutory order requiring Mr Simmons to answer 18 interrogatories.

[2] Mr Simmons opposed the application on the basis they were unnecessary, irrelevant to any matter at issue and, as a fishing expedition, vexatious and oppressive. He provided an affidavit swearing that he had not “hacked” the computer systems and that hacking into a computer system with malicious intent was the opposite of who he really was. In response to the plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with that affidavit, he swore a second affidavit saying, among other things:

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] He also denied that he knew personal information about another employee, that he knew the second applicant’s passwords or had access to his emails.

[4] On 22 December 2020 I issued an interlocutory judgment ordering Mr Simmons to answer certain of the interrogatories.1 I said:

[8] I consider the interrogatories are relevant and relatively limited and are not vexatious or oppressive. I order that Mr Simmons answer interrogatories one to 10 and 12 to 15 in schedule A of the application within five working days of the date of this judgment, i.e. 5 pm Wednesday 20 January 2021, in compliance with r 8.39 and verify the answers by affidavits. I award costs to the plaintiffs and against…

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 v Simmons

Details

AGLC: Rock Solid Holdings v Simmons [2021] NZHC 2892
Case: [2021] NZHC 2892
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rock Solid Holdings, Peter John Bishop and Fieldco Limited brought an action against Braden Matthews Simmons for breach of confidence and intrusion upon seclusion. They claimed Mr Simmons accessed their computer systems without authorisation. They sought an interlocutory order requiring Mr Simmons to answer 18 interrogatories. Mr Simmons opposed the application and later provided answers to some interrogatories. The applicants applied for indemnity or increased costs. The applicants argued that Mr Simmons’ opposition to the application to answer interrogatories was improper and relied on false or misleading evidence. The applicants sought indemnity costs for the preparation of the application. Mr Simmons argued that he did not oppose the application improperly, and the evidence he relied on was not false or misleading. Mr Simmons argued that the applicants' claim for indemnity costs was excessive and sought costs on this application if they did not succeed. The court considered that Mr Simmons’ reliance on evidence in his first and second affidavits in opposing the application to answer interrogatories was misleading. The court quashed the original order for costs on a 2B basis and substituted an order that Mr Simmons pay indemnity costs and disbursements in the amount sought. The court considered the amount of indemnity costs claimed reasonably reflected actual costs.

Orders