Spackman v Martin - [2022] NZHC 554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000142

[2022] NZHC 554

BETWEEN
MURRAY SPACKMAN

First Plaintiff

AND

THOMAS MOORE

Second Plaintiff

AND

PATRICK MARTIN

First Defendant

AND

NICOLA MARTIN

Second Defendant

AND

ROBERT SNOEP

Third Defendant

AND

CREATEIP

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 1 March 2022

Appearances:

G Slevin for First and Second Plaintiffs

M E Parker and T Bielby for Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

24 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 March 2022 at 12.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

SPACKMAN v MARTIN [2022] NZHC 554 [24 March 2022]

[1] This is an application by the third and fourth defendants for leave to issue a third party notice to Stephen Peter Hampson pursuant to r 4.4 (1) and (2) of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2]The application is opposed by the plaintiffs.

Background

[3] This litigation arises from a failed investment by the plaintiffs (Mr Spackman and Mr Moore respectively) in a company called Solar Bright Ltd (Solar Bright). Solar Bright is now in liquidation.

[4] The first and second defendants (Mr and Mrs Martin respectively) were founding directors and shareholders in Solar Bright.

[5] The third defendant (Mr Snoep) is a patent attorney who, along with his firm, the fourth defendant (CreateIP), provided professional services to both Solar Bright and Mr Martin in relation to inventions developed by Mr Martin whilst a director and shareholder of Solar Bright. I will refer to Mr Snoep and CreateIP together as “the applicants”.

[6] Mr Hampson was a director of Solar Bright between October 2013 and September 2017. He was also, at relevant times, a director of Powerhouse Ventures Ltd (PVL), the largest shareholder of Solar Bright.

[7] Solar Bright wished to raise capital and intended to do this through the issue of shares. In January 2017, Mr Spackman was invited to invest in the company and he introduced Mr Moore to the opportunity.

[8] At that time, Solar Bright held patents for a product called Pateye, and Mr Martin was developing a new product known as Dataeye. Pateye was a road stud that flashed a blue light when the temperature was sufficiently low to allow the formation of ice on the road. Dataeye monitored and reported on other matters, such as traffic volumes and weights of vehicles in motion, from sensors contained in Pateye road studs. The plaintiffs considered there was enormous potential in these inventions.

[9] The third amended statement of claim identifies meetings that occurred prior to the plaintiffs deciding to invest in Solar Bright where, the plaintiffs allege, representations were made concerning ownership of Pateye and Dataeye and steps that were being taken to protect the intellectual property in the inventions.

[10] The plaintiffs plead that on 19 January 2017, Mr Spackman met with Mr Hampson and was shown a shareholders and subscription agreement to which Solar Bright and Mr and…

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 Spackman v Martin 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: [2022] NZHC 554
Decision Date: 24 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Spackman v Martin, the third and fourth defendants sought leave to join a third party, Stephen Hampson, to the litigation. The plaintiffs opposed the application. The litigation arose from a failed investment by the plaintiffs in Solar Bright Ltd, a company in liquidation, following the development of two products, Pateye and Dataeye. The plaintiffs alleged that they were deceived by the defendants into investing in Solar Bright due to false representations about the ownership of the intellectual property in the products and the steps being taken to protect it. The third and fourth defendants sought to join Mr Hampson on the grounds that he may have contributed to the plaintiffs' loss, and that there were common issues between the plaintiffs' claims against them and any claim they might have against Mr Hampson. The plaintiffs argued that the application was made in bad faith and without reasonable cause, and that joining Mr Hampson would cause delay and oppression. The court found that at least two of the proposed causes of action against Mr Hampson were arguable, and that the delay in making the application, while not adequately explained, would not prejudice the plaintiffs. The court also found that while joining Mr Hampson as a party would cause him some inconvenience, it was not oppressive and was necessary to achieve justice between the parties. The court granted leave to join Mr Hampson as a third party, and ordered a case management conference to consider any necessary variations to the timetable. Costs were reserved.

Orders