Both were described as having strong and determined personalities. Steve Simmons and Chris Pickering spent an expensive week in the High Court fighting over ownership of technology used to detect water leaks in high pressure pipes. Justice Woolford ruled both were in breach of their joint venture arrangement and neither were entitled to damages.
What started out in 2007 as a strong personal friendship ended as a bitter employment dispute in the Employment Court and a property dispute in the High Court.
The High Court was told the two collaborated on development of a leak detection system for use in both Australia and New Zealand, by a business trading under the name Detection Solutions. Previously with an office furniture company, Mr Pickering was employed by Mr Simmons in early 2010 as general manager of Detection Services. The following year they had fallen out over ownership of the leak detection technology developed. Equipment for detecting leaks was built in New Zealand; engineering quotes from New Zealand firms were markedly lower than Australian. Mr Simmons fired Mr Pickering for not handing over the developed product. The Employment Court ruled Mr Pickering had been unjustifiably dismissed; development of the leak detection system was not part of his employment contract. Questions of ownership moved to the High Court. Justice Woolford ruled development of the technology was a joint venture: they shared ideas; Mr Pickering contributed his computer skills and Mr Simmons his engineering knowledge. While the leak detection system in its final form was put together after Mr Pickering was employed as general manager, it remained a product of their prior joint venture. Their falling out was triggered over compensation payable to Mr Pickering for work he had done developing the leak detection system. When it came to the crunch, Mr Pickering said he was owed $257,100. Mr Simmons claimed $3.1 million for what he said was the cost of re-engineering the system from scratch after Mr Pickering failed to hand over the finished product. Meanwhile, the product of Mr Pickering’s work lies crated up in storage, the court was told.
Justice Woolford ruled a joint venture between the two for the design and construction of a leak detection system for Detection Services came into existence by at least late 2008. The joint venture relationship meant each owed duties of trust and confidence to the other. They were required to act in good faith. Both failed to act in good faith and instead acted in their own interests by failing to negotiate and settle the terms of payment to Mr Pickering for his work on the project, Justice Woolford said. Mr Pickering took the stance he alone owned the leak detection equipment. He failed to clearly itemise how he reached his claimed figure of $257,100. For his part, Mr Simmons incorrectly elevated a joint venture dispute about price to an employment dispute.
Detection Services Ltd v. Pickering – High Court (14.12.18)
19.025
Post judgment note: The Court of Appeal held Mr Pickering was in breach of their joint venture agreement by not handing over the developed product together with invoices for development costs incurred. Mr Simmons was ready and able to make payment of invoices provided. The case was referred back to the High Court for assessment of damages.
Post judgment note: The Court of Appeal held Mr Pickering was in breach of their joint venture agreement by not handing over the developed product together with invoices for development costs incurred. Mr Simmons was ready and able to make payment of invoices provided. The case was referred back to the High Court for assessment of damages.