Vector Limited v Stuff Limited - [2018] NZHC 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-000820

[2018] NZHC 1680

BETWEEN
VECTOR LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

STUFF LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Andrew Brown QC for the Plaintiff Robert Stewart for the Defendant

Judgment:

10 July 2018

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2018 at 12:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

VECTOR LIMITED v STUFF LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1680 [10 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] In April this year an App developed by Vector Ltd (“Vector”) was hacked. Confidential data of up to 24,000 customers was accessed.

[2] When this data came into the possession of Stuff Ltd (“Stuff”), Vector sought an interlocutory injunction restraining Stuff from using the data in any way, including copying, retaining, or distributing it. It also sought that any physical copies of the data be delivered up to the Registrar of the High Court at Auckland.

[3] Stuff consequently provided undertakings, which have in effect brought these proceedings to a close. Vector now seeks costs.

Background

[4] The data acquired contained the names, physical addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers of up to 24,000 Vector customers. The anonymous hacker provided the data to Stuff, which published an article on its website about the data breach on 26 April 2018, titled “Thousands of ‘vulnerable’ customers’ private data shared by Vector App”. As part of that article, Stuff contacted one of the people named in the data, an Auckland-based celebrity, for comment.

[5] Once it received notice of the article, Vector wrote to Stuff requesting confirmation that the confidential and personal information would be promptly returned or “destroyed or isolated or secured and [would] not be used”. It made two further requests on 27 and 28 April 2018. On each occasion Stuff refused.

[6] Vector accordingly brought proceedings on 2 May 2018 alleging breach of confidence. It was Vector’s position that Stuff’s continued possession of the data and its use to contact one of Vector’s customers was in breach of confidence. The same day it filed an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining Stuff, in short, from using the data in any way, including copying, retaining, or distributing it.

[7] The matter was called on 7 May 2018 as part of the duty judge list. Mr Brown QC, who appeared for Vector, advised that Stuff indicated the confidential

customer data had been removed from its computer system. In order to bring an end to the proceeding, I asked that the matter be listed for appearance on 9 May 2018, with a view to a joint memorandum being filed.

[8] A memorandum was filed on 8 May 2018. In it Stuff made various undertakings which resolved the application for an interim injunction, and in short order this proceeding will likely be discontinued. But costs were not agreed, hence this application.

Relevant costs principles

[9] While costs are at 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 Vector Limited v Stuff Limited

Details

AGLC: Vector Limited v Stuff Limited [2018] NZHC 1680
Case: [2018] NZHC 1680
Decision Date: 10 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vector Limited, a company that developed an App, brought an interlocutory injunction application against Stuff Limited, a media company, after an App developed by Vector was hacked and confidential data of up to 24,000 customers was accessed. Stuff Limited subsequently came into possession of the data and published an article about the data breach. Vector sought an interlocutory injunction restraining Stuff from using the data in any way, including copying, retaining, or distributing it. Stuff Limited provided undertakings that brought these proceedings to a close. Vector then sought costs.

The court had to determine whether Vector was entitled to costs as the successful party. Vector argued that it was the successful party because it had secured the relief it sought in its written correspondence, interlocutory application, and statement of claim. Stuff Limited submitted that the proceedings were unnecessary and as a result Vector should bear its own costs. The court held that the practical situation was that Vector had achieved the result it sought in issuing the proceedings. However, the court found that there was not sufficient evidence to safely conclude on the papers that Stuff’s decision to make undertakings was a consequence of this proceeding being brought. Therefore, the court held that costs should lie where they fall.

The court ordered that costs were to lie where they fall.

Orders