Ruscoe v Epic Trust Limited - [2024] NZHC 1546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-58

[2024] NZHC 1546

UNDER the Trade Marks Act 2002, Fair Trading Act 1986, and breach of confidence

BETWEEN

DAVID IAN RUSCOE AND MALCOLM RUSSELL MOORE OF GRANT THORNTON NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED as liquidators of CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

First Plaintiffs

CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Second Plaintiff

AND

EPIC TRUST LIMITED

First Defendant

THOMAS VICTOR HENRY RONALD CATTERMOLE

Second Defendant

MARTIN BRAINE

Third Defendant

PERSONS UNKNOWN

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 15 April 2024 [Further memoranda 19 April 2024, 11 June 2024]

Counsel:

S A Barker and B E Marriner for Plaintiffs B Henry for First Defendant

Judgment:

13 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Ancillary orders and amended interim orders]

RUSCOE AND RUSSELL MOORE OF GRANT THORNTON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED as liquidators of CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2024] NZHC 1546 [13 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] Following a hearing on 15 April 2024, I issued a judgment on 24 May 2024 granting the plaintiffs, the liquidators of Cryptopia Ltd, interim injunctions preventing the defendants from using Cryptopia’s confidential information.1

[2] However, on 19 April 2024 the plaintiffs had filed a memorandum seeking several amendments to the interim orders sought in the application for an interim injunction, and sought ancillary orders in support. The memorandum was overlooked and in my 24 May 2024 judgment I granted the interim orders in a form that largely reflected those set out in the plaintiffs’ original application.2 I did not address ancillary orders. I reserved leave to the plaintiffs to modify the terms of the orders.3

[3] On 11 June 2024, the plaintiffs filed a further memorandum requesting the Court make the orders set out in the draft interlocutory orders and draft amended interim orders filed on 19 April 2024.4

[4] There are two questions this judgment addresses. The first is whether the interim orders set out in my judgment should be modified to reflect the amendments sought by the plaintiffs on 19 April 2024. The second is whether the ancillary orders requested by the plaintiffs should be granted.

The amended interim orders sought by plaintiffs

[5] The plaintiffs’ memorandum of 19 April 2024 proposed an amendment of the interim orders to require that the first and second defendant disclose, by way of affidavit, the identity, whereabouts and contact details of the third defendant, and any other legal persons in control of decision making for the fourth defendant. This reflects

1      See Ruscoe v Epic Trust [2024] NZHC 1336 at [4]–[12] for an overview of the background to the proceeding.
2      See Ruscoe v Epic Trust above n 1 at [38] for the orders made.
3 At [39].
4      In the 11 June 2024 memorandum the plaintiffs requested that the Court makes the orders [3(b)], [3(c)] and [3(d)] of the draft interlocutory orders and [3(b)] of the draft amended interim orders, referring to the draft orders filed on 19 April 2024.

the difficulty the…

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 Ruscoe v Epic Trust Limited

Details

AGLC: Ruscoe v Epic Trust Limited [2024] NZHC 1546
Case: [2024] NZHC 1546
Decision Date: 13 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ruscoe and Russell Moore of Grant Thornton New Zealand Limited as liquidators of Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) versus Epic Trust Limited, Thomas Victor Henry Cattermole, Martin Braine, and persons unknown was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiffs sought modifications to the interim injunctions that were previously granted, as well as additional ancillary orders, to further protect Cryptopia's confidential information from misuse. The defendants, particularly the first and second defendants, were already restrained from using or disclosing certain information related to Cryptopia, but the plaintiffs argued that more stringent measures were necessary to fully safeguard the proprietary information. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the proposed modifications to the interim orders and the ancillary orders were justified and whether they should be granted to prevent further misuse of confidential information.

The court considered the difficulties the plaintiffs had encountered in identifying the third and fourth defendants, who were believed to be involved in the misuse of Cryptopia's information. The plaintiffs' request for the first and second defendants to disclose the identities and details of the third and fourth defendants was seen as crucial to fully enforce the protective measures. Additionally, the ancillary orders sought by the plaintiffs aimed to ensure comprehensive compliance with the injunctions by all entities involved and to prevent any circumvention of the court's orders. The court found that the proposed modifications and ancillary orders were necessary to achieve the primary goal of protecting Cryptopia's confidential information and preventing its further unauthorised use.

The court granted the modified interim orders and the ancillary orders as requested by the plaintiffs, largely in the terms proposed. These orders included prohibitions on using or disclosing Cryptopia's confidential information, requirements for the first and second defendants to disclose the identities and details of the third and fourth defendants, and mandates for all defendants to disclose their knowledge of any information that might contain or be derived from the confidential information. The court also required the second defendant to ensure compliance with the orders by all entities under his control and restricted the leave to set aside or vary the interlocutory orders to ensure fairness and due process. The outcome of the case reinforces the importance of protecting confidential information and ensures that all parties involved are held accountable for any misuse.

Orders