ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND ORS V GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-000809

ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND ORS V GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-000809

The court held that the third defendant's applications were justified because the plaintiffs, having pleaded an inquiry into damages or an account of profits, must particularise their loss and provide particular discovery of financial and sales documents relevant to the pleaded claim; accordingly plaintiffs were ordered to provide specified particulars and a supplementary affidavit of documents within set time frames.

Citation
openlaw-569d6d99_da06_454e_bb9f_2bc20793ca4b.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Oraka Technologies Limited; Second Plaintiff: Oraka Graders Limited; Third Plaintiff: Michael William Schwarz; First Defendant: Geostel Vision Limited; Second Defendants: Paul Daynes and Gordon Robertson; Third Defendant: Napier Tool and Die Limited; Fourth Defendant: Longveld Engineering Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (copyright) / Interlocutory Applications for Particulars and Particular Discovery
Outcome
Applications by third defendant for particulars and particular discovery granted in part
Legal Topics
Particulars, Particular Discovery, Injunctions, Damages, Account of Profits, Discovery Orders, Flagrancy Damages, Right of Election
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Particulars Particular Discovery Injunctions Damages Account of Profits +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oraka Technologies Limited

First Plaintiff

Oraka Graders Limited

Second Plaintiff

Michael William Schwarz

Third Plaintiff

Geostel Vision Limited

First Defendant

Paul Daynes and Gordon Robertson

Second Defendants

Napier Tool and Die Limited

Third Defendant

Longveld Engineering Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (copyright) / Interlocutory Applications for Particulars and Particular Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs must provide particulars of loss and particulars of representations prior to determination of liability
  2. 2 Whether order for particular discovery under r 300 of the High Court Rules is necessary at this stage
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' right to elect between damages and account of profits justifies withholding particulars or discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the third defendant's applications were justified because the plaintiffs, having pleaded an inquiry into damages or an account of profits, must particularise their loss and provide particular discovery of financial and sales documents relevant to the pleaded claim; accordingly plaintiffs were ordered to provide specified particulars and a supplementary affidavit of documents within set time frames.

Court Disposition

Applications by third defendant for particulars and particular discovery granted in part

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' further particulars in counsel's letter of 24 January 2008 are amended as specified in paragraph [8] of the judgment.
  • By 13 February 2008 the plaintiffs shall file and serve a memorandum providing particulars identifying person(s), place and approximate time of representations as specified in [8](b); this issue to be reviewed at a telephone conference on 15 February 2008 at 9am.