Tracplus Global Limited v Deaker - [2024] NZHC 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2023-442-36

[2024] NZHC 502

BETWEEN
TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED

Applicant

AND

SHAWN DEAKER

First Respondent

V2TRACK (2022) LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel

P J Napier and P J Shanahan-Pinker for Applicant

T Smith and O C Gascoigne for First and Second Respondents

Judgment:

8 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

(Costs)

[1] TracPlus brought this proceeding against Mr Deaker and V2Track alleging that they had accessed its confidential information. Causes of action for breaches of confidentiality and confidence, and in tort, were advanced. An application for interim relief was made.

[2] Soon before the application for interim relief was to be heard, I issued a minute in which I asked counsel to address a preliminary issue at the hearing on whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the proceeding. The hearing was then dedicated to submissions on that issue and, in my judgment of 7 December 2023, I concluded that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the matters that are the subject of the proceeding and that, accordingly, the High Court had no jurisdiction to take any further steps.

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v DEAKER [2024] NZHC 502 [8 March 2024]

[3] Following an exchange of memoranda, on 20 December 2023, I made an order under r 10.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 dismissing the proceeding.

[4] Mr Deaker and V2Track now seek costs of $42,840.75 on an increased costs basis and disbursements of $4,443.30. TracPlus says that costs should lie where they fall because, given the dismissal of the proceeding on the jurisdictional grounds raised by the Court itself, neither party could be said to have been successful or to have failed in its claim or in its defence of the proceeding.

The nature of the claim for costs

[5] The position that Mr Deaker and V2Track take is based upon their views on the merits of the interim injunction application and on the case as a whole. They say that the proceedings were misconceived and unnecessary. They say that allegations made at the outset were incorrect and that the plaintiff’s application for interim relief needed to be reconceived as a consequence. It is said that, through a combination of practical (technology-based) means and undertakings, the potential for ongoing access to TracPlus’ confidential information by Mr Deaker and V2Track could have been addressed, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.

[6] In this sense, its position is based upon a premise that it would have succeeded in defending the interim injunction application and the substantive issues.

[7] Moreover, it says that increased costs are appropriate as a result of the way in which TracPlus conducted the proceedings. It alleges that TracPlus failed to act reasonably because the application for interim relief was unnecessary, unreasonable and lacked merit, because undertakings offered were not accepted and because the nature of the allegations was such as to necessitate significant affidavit evidence.

[8] 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 Tracplus Global Limited v Deaker

Details

AGLC: Tracplus Global Limited v Deaker [2024] NZHC 502
Case: [2024] NZHC 502
Decision Date: 8 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TracPlus Global Limited filed proceedings against Shawn Deaker and V2Track (2022) Limited, alleging breaches of confidentiality, confidence, and tortious acts involving the misuse of confidential information. The court was asked to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case and, if so, to consider an application for interim relief. Before the application for interim relief was heard, the court issued a minute directing counsel to address the jurisdictional issue, leading to a hearing focused solely on this matter. In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2023, the court concluded that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction, and therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further with the case. Following this conclusion, the court made an order on 20 December 2023 dismissing the proceeding under rule 10.19 of the High Court Rules 2016.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the proceeding. The court determined that the Employment Relations Authority, rather than the High Court, had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter. This decision was based on the nature of the claims and the relevant statutory framework. The court found that the Employment Relations Authority was the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute, and the High Court was without jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the jurisdictional arguments presented by the parties and the statutory framework governing employment relations in New Zealand. The court concluded that the Employment Relations Authority was the exclusive forum for resolving the issues raised in the proceeding. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that it was not in a position to form any view on the merits of the underlying proceeding or the application for interim relief, as these matters were not argued before the court. The court also highlighted that it could not consider the prospect of increased costs on the basis of submissions that the application lacked merit or was unnecessary.

The court ruled that, given the dismissal of the proceeding on jurisdictional grounds raised by the court itself, neither party could be said to have been successful or to have failed in its claim or in its defence of the proceeding. Therefore, costs should lie where they fall. The court emphasised that it was not appropriate to determine costs based on the merits of the underlying proceeding or the application for interim relief, as these matters were not heard. The court also noted that it could not make substantive findings about the conduct of the proceedings or the nature and utility of evidence filed on the substantive issues when the underlying proceeding had not been heard. Accordingly, the court made no order for costs or for the payment of disbursements.

Orders