Tracplus Global Limited v V2Track (2022) Limited - [2022] NZHC 1556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV 2022-419-143

[2022] NZHC 1556

BETWEEN
TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED

First Plaintiff

TRACPLUS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

TRACPLUS USA, INC.
Third Plaintiff

AND

V2TRACK (2022) LIMITED

First Defendant

BEVAN DIPROSE
Second Defendant

KYLAN DIPROSE

Third Defendant

Hearing: 28 June 2022

Appearances:

P J Napier and A Ryder for the plaintiffs

O C Gascoigne and L Walker for the defendants

Judgment:

1 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2022 at 2.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v V2TRACK (2022) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1556 [1 July 2022]

[1] The plaintiffs apply for interim injunctions against the defendants, requiring the defendants to deactivate communication connections provided to Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services (QPWS), a customer of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs say the defendants are unlawfully retaining those connections, thereby preventing the second plaintiff from being able to provide communication and tracking services that the second plaintiff is contracted to supply to QPWS.

Background

[2] The first plaintiff, TracPlus Global Ltd (TracPlus), provides software for tracking and communication using satellites. It has over 700 customers in over 44 countries. Its software is primarily used by aviation first responder organisations.

[3] TracPlus has two subsidiary companies: the second plaintiff, TracPlus Australia Pty Ltd (TracPlus Australia), and the second plaintiff, TracPlus USA, Inc. As the names suggest, those companies are incorporated in Australia and the United States of America respectively. Both subsidiaries are entirely controlled by TracPlus. It will be unnecessary for me to refer to TracPlus USA, Inc further.

[4] TracPlus primarily provides software, though it also provides tracking hardware through partnerships with third party manufacturers.

[5] In simple terms, each aircraft or vehicle that is tracked contains a hardware device that communicates via the Iridium satellite constellation (Iridium). Iridium remits data to and from the TracPlus servers. Each hardware device is referred to as aligning with a “connection”.

[6] According to the affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiffs, the connections to Iridium are critical to TracPlus’s operations. TracPlus’s customers mostly operate in remote or challenging locations outside cellular coverage. Data is sent from an aircraft or vehicle via its device connection to an Iridium satellite. From there it is relayed to an earth station, to TracPlus via the Internet, then back the other way.

[7] In May 2020, TracPlus agreed to acquire the business of V2 Track Ltd, a company based in Cambridge, New Zealand, that manufactured tracking hardware.

V2 Track Ltd also provided tracking software known as the V2 platform. V2 Track Ltd had about 600 Iridium connections, which TracPlus acquired under the agreement. V2 Track Ltd’s directors were Bevan and Kylan Diprose, who are the second and third defendants.

[8] The acquisition of V2 Track Ltd’s business did not work out as well as TracPlus had hoped.…

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 V2Track (2022) Limited 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 1556
Decision Date: 1 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TracPlus Global Limited, TracPlus Australia Pty Ltd, and TracPlus USA, Inc. (collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs") filed an application for interim injunctions against v2track (2022) Limited, Bevan Diprose, and Kylan Diprose (collectively referred to as the "Defendants") in the High Court of New Zealand. The Plaintiffs sought to deactivate communication connections provided by the Defendants to Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services (QPWS), a customer of TracPlus Australia. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants were unlawfully retaining these connections, preventing TracPlus Australia from providing communication and tracking services to QPWS under their contract. The court had to decide whether the Plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried, where the balance of convenience lay, and what the overall justice of the case was.

The court found that the Plaintiffs' claim under the tort of inducing breach of contract was not arguable, as the Plaintiffs were the party in breach of the underlying contract. However, the court found it reasonably arguable that the Defendants' retention of the Iridium connections for QPWS was unlawful, and that the Defendants had retained those connections with the intent to cause loss to the Plaintiffs. The balance of convenience favoured the grant of the interim injunctions, considering the potential losses that would be suffered by TracPlus Australia, the difficulty in calculating damages for the Plaintiffs, and the strength of the Plaintiffs' case. The overall justice of the case also favoured the grant of the interim relief sought by the Plaintiffs, as QPWS had expressed serious concerns about the safety of its staff if the connections were not deactivated.

The court ordered that the first Defendant deactivate the Iridium connections for QPWS that it holds, and that the second and third Defendants cause the first Defendant to deactivate the Iridium connections for QPWS that the first Defendant holds. The Plaintiffs were entitled to costs on the application.

Orders