Harbour City Security Limited v Allied Security Limited [2020] NZHC 3535 (24 December 2020)

Last Updated: 26 January 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-751 [2020] NZHC 3535

BETWEEN	HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED Applicant/Plaintiff
AND	ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED Respondent

On the papers:
Counsel:	D Bleier for Applicant/Plaintiff
Judgment:	24 December 2020

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF CHURCHMAN J

• [1] On 23 December 2020, the Court issued a mandatory interim injunction in this matter. The interim injunction required the respondent, Allied Security Limited, to return or provide for collection certain keys and associated identifying tags.

• [2] By memorandum dated 23 December 2020, the applicant has sought a variation of the injunction to add, as a party subject to the injunction, Allied Investments Limited.

• [3] The reason for this is that the applicant, at the time of filing the documentation in support of the interim injunction was under the impression that the keys and associated identifying tags were held by the respondent.

• [4] Attached to the memorandum of 23 December 2020 was an email exchange between counsel for the applicant and a principal of the respondent. In that email, Damian Black (Mr Black) of Allied Security Limited informed counsel for the applicant that Allied Security Limited did not hold any keys. The email then added

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY LIMITED v ALLIED SECURITY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3535 [24 December 2020]

“...as such [Allied Security Limited] will not be in breach of any injunctions.” I infer the statement to mean that Mr Black was communicating the intention of Allied Security Limited to ignore the injunction.

• [5] In the memorandum of 23 December 2020, counsel for the applicant indicated that Mr Black was now asserting that the keys were held by a different company, Allied Investments Limited. Counsel filed a copy of a company search of that company which disclosed that Mr Black was a director of Allied Investments Limited.

• [6] On that basis, counsel wish the injunction to be varied to include Allied Investments Limited.

Analysis

• [7] Given the position adopted by Mr Black on behalf of Allied Security Limited to the effect that it is Allied Investments Limited as opposed to Allied Security Limited, that is in possession of the keys and associated identifying tags that were the subject of the injunction issued on 23 December 2020, it is appropriate that the terms of that injunction be varied so that the injunction extends to Allied Investments Limited. The same exigencies that justified the making of the original order on a without notice basis apply to this amended order.

Outcome

• [8] Accordingly, the Court issues an injunction in the following terms:

(a) pending further order of the Court, the respondent, and Allied Investments Limited are directed to forthwith return to, or make available for collection by the applicant, the keys and associated identifying tags belonging to the clients of the applicant as set out in the schedule to the application in these proceedings.

• [9] The plaintiff should also consider formally adding Allied Investments Limited as a defendant in these proceedings.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Paul Cheng and Co, Wellington for Plaintiff

Barrister:

D Bleier, Wellington for Plaintiff