New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of confidence

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

INTECH INC v STABICRAFT MARINE LIMITED and STABIX LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2546

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2546
Court

High Court

Although the IP ownership issues are common to both proceedings and are properly to be decided in the Anura proceeding, a stay is unjustified because plaintiffs have a right to timely access to the Court, defendants filed no evidential material to prove prejudice or necessity for a stay, the Anura timeline is uncertain and may be delayed, duplication of costs was not established, and appropriate case management at hearing allocation is the correct remedy rather than an immediate stay; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
7 Dec 2023

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v DEAKER [2023] NZHC 3573

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3573
Court

High Court

The High Court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute about access to and potential misuse of confidential information stems from former employment relationships and can be framed within s161 Employment Relations Act 2000 (including paras (a),(b),(f) and the catch-all (r)); FMV v TZB requires such matters to be determined by the Employment Relations Authority and a tort-only pleading does not avoid that exclusivity.
11 Oct 2023

VISION PERSONAL TRAINING v WILLIAMS [2023] NZHC 2848

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2848
Court

High Court

Court found there is a serious question to be tried that Mr Williams was involved in and facilitated The Right Fit's use of Vision PT confidential and copyrighted materials; balance of convenience favoured plaintiffs because injunction is narrowly tailored and limited harm to plaintiffs would otherwise be irreparable; conditional interim injunction granted restraining disclosure, copying and solicitation and, on payment of NZD 15,000 security, restraining Mr Williams' involvement with The Right Fit; consent orders made against second and third defendants; plaintiffs to provide security to sup…
9 Oct 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v B (Reasons for take-down and suppression orders) [2023] NZHC 2824

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2824
Court

High Court

Given police evidence of hacked confidential client files publicly accessible on an offshore Channel, the lack of effective alternative remedies, the platform's non‑cooperation, the respondent's refusal to remove the material, and the imminent risk of further harm, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant ex parte targeted take‑down orders (limited to offending confidential information) and suppression of identifying particulars to protect fair trial and investigative interests; supplementary orders to restrict administrative access and public access were also justified to…
21 Sept 2023

FIRST CREDIT UNION INCORPORATED v VAIANGINA [2023] NZHC 2639

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2639
Court

High Court

On the affidavits and material before the Court FCU demonstrated a good arguable case on at least one pleaded cause of action, identified assets with sufficient particularity, and established a real risk of dissipation supported by alleged fraudulent conduct and respondent non‑engagement; balancing the interests and given the offered undertaking as to damages, limited without‑notice freezing relief was justified, including restraint over the jointly owned leasehold property as against the co‑owner respondents but not as a personal order against the non‑defendant co‑owner.
26 Jun 2023

MONNERY v PARSONS [2023] NZHC 1595

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1595
Court

High Court

Court held there had been a sufficient change in character and material circumstances (addition of three causes of action, doubling of claimed quantum, increased complexity and protraction, and continued non‑disclosure of plaintiffs' financial position) to justify revisiting the prior security order; it exercised discretion to order further global security for costs in the total sum of NZD 150,000 payable in staged tranches and ordered discovery of financial records including IR3 tax returns; failure to pay staged amounts when due will stay the plaintiffs' proceeding until payment.
5 May 2023

BREMWORTH LIMITED (FORMERLY CAVALIER CORPORATION LIMITED) v RADFORD YARN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1059

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1059
Court

High Court

Court identified specific elements of the 2011 IP transfer that were confidential (notably tube technology and formulation, certain tube‑tensioning mechanics, PLC/HMI programs and related control software and some yarn specifications), found defendants had used some of that confidential information (PLC programs, tube technology and aspects of tensioning on PF1/PF2), but concluded plaintiffs by conduct authorised/acquiesced in and are estopped from wholly revoking permission to use the Confidential Information for limited purposes (apparel/novelty yarns, specified supplies to Nick Radford Rug…
22 Dec 2022

BEVERLEY v DRYLANDCARBON GP ONE LTD [2022] NZHC 3606

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3606
Court

High Court

Leave granted under s165 because the proposed derivative claims were at least arguable on the evidence (diversion of corporate opportunity, misuse of company information, breach of confidence and dishonest assistance), no company action to pursue them existed, the potential commercial value justified litigation against estimated costs, and a prudent business person would pursue the claims; s165(3)(a) threshold met and mandatory s165(2) factors satisfied.
2 Sept 2022

MATVIN GROUP LIMITED v CROWN FINANCE LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2239

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2239
Court

High Court

On the facts the parties proceeded from July–October 2013 in a manner consistent with a joint venture: Matvin performed developer due diligence and Crown engaged as funding/profit‑share participant. Crown owed fiduciary duties, breached them by misusing confidential information and enabling Viscount (a CAPG entity with the same director) to acquire 122 Hobsonville Road; Viscount knowingly/dishonestly assisted. Second defendant not shown to be liable. Appropriate remedy is an account of profits; further hearing ordered to quantify profits.
23 Jun 2022

RASCAL AND FRIENDS NZ LTD trading as RASCAL + FRIENDS v TAYLOR & ORS [2022] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

Access to the requested court documents is denied because the proceeding is at a premature pre-substantive stage with unsettled pleadings and pending strike-out and amendment applications; the protection of privacy and commercially sensitive information and the real risk of unbalanced reporting outweigh open justice at this stage; redaction is unlikely to cure those risks and no adequate disclosure conditions were proposed.