Tracplus Global Limited v Deaker - [2023] NZHC 3573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2023-442-36

[2023] NZHC 3573

BETWEEN
TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED

Applicant

AND

SHAWN DEAKER

First Respondent

V2TRACK (2022) LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 29 November 2023

Counsel:

P J Napier and P J Shanahan-Pinker for Applicant

T Smith and O C Gascoigne for First and Second Respondents

Judgment:

7 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] This decision applies the principles established by the Supreme Court in FMV v TZB: if a problem that relates to or arises out of an employment relationship can be framed within the terms of s 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – which defines the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority – then the Authority will have exclusive jurisdiction to determine it and it cannot be considered by this Court.1

[2] TracPlus is concerned about inadvertent access that Mr Deaker and the two directors of V2Track (2022) Limited may have to confidential documents on its

1 FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102. The extent of the limited exclusions from the terms of s 16(1)(l)(r) is discussed later in this decision.

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v DEAKER [2023] NZHC 3573 [7 December 2023]

Google Drive by reason of their former employment relationships with TracPlus Global Limited.

[3] For the reasons I go on to give, the problem that arises can be framed within the terms of s 161 and, as a consequence, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the case.

The context and the issues

[4] The hearing, during which the arguments addressed in this decision were heard, was scheduled for the purpose of determining TracPlus’s application for interim relief. TracPlus seeks interim orders restraining Mr Deaker and V2Track from accessing or using its confidential information.

[5]On 27 November 2023, I issued a minute in the following terms:

I have been assigned to hear this case on Wednesday. I ask that counsel address a preliminary jurisdictional issue – either in advance, or at the commencement, of the hearing.

In FMV v TZB [2021] 1 NZLR 466, a majority of the Supreme Court (Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O’Regan and Williams JJ) held that employment relationship problems that could be framed in terms of any of the examples in s 161(1)(a)–(qd) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 must be framed as such and may not be brought in any jurisdiction other than the Employment Relations Authority: at [94] and [127] per Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan and Williams JJ; at [171] per William Young J. And see the examples given at [99] to [101].

As a result, does the High Court have jurisdiction in this proceeding?

[6] It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing that the time that was available would be used to address the jurisdictional issues and that, if the Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction in the case, then it would deal with the applicant’s application for interim relief on the papers.2

[7] There…

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 Tracplus Global Limited v Deaker 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: [2023] NZHC 3573
Decision Date: 7 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, TracPlus Global Limited sought interim relief against Shawn Deaker and V2Track (2022) Limited, arguing that these parties had gained access to confidential information due to their prior employment relationships with TracPlus. The court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction over the case, given the principles established by the Supreme Court in FMV v TZB regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority over employment relationship problems. The court identified two key jurisdictional issues: whether the problem related to or arose out of an employment relationship and whether it mattered that TracPlus framed its claims solely in tort. The court found that the problem did relate to or arise out of the employment relationship, as it stemmed from the former employees' continued access to confidential information due to their past employment. The court also determined that the fact that TracPlus framed its claims in tort did not alter the employment relationship context of the case. Consequently, the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further. The court ordered the parties to address the procedural steps to take moving forward and set timelines for submissions on costs.

Orders