PLUMPTON v TERRY [2015] NZHC 527

PLUMPTON v TERRY [2015] NZHC 527

There is a serious question to be tried and, on balance of convenience, a limited ex parte interim injunction was justified to prevent imminent prejudice to the applicants; accordingly respondents were restrained from soliciting present clients of UCFX for a limited time, while the remainder of the application is to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 527
Parties
First Plaintiff/applicant: Kevin Ian Plumpton; Second Plaintiff/applicant: UCFX Ltd; First Defendant/respondent: James Terry; Second Defendant/respondent: Brent David Colbert; Third Defendant/respondent: Scott Maynard
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory Injunction) / Ex Parte Interim Injunction Application (on the Papers)
Outcome
Limited interim injunction granted ex parte in part; application otherwise reserved and not finally disposed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Fiduciary Duties of De Facto Directors, Solicitation of Clients and Employees, Balance of Convenience, Ex Parte Relief
Injunctions Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Interim Injunction Fiduciary Duties of De Facto Directors Solicitation of Clients and Employees Balance of Convenience +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Ian Plumpton

First Plaintiff/applicant

UCFX Ltd

Second Plaintiff/applicant

James Terry

First Defendant/respondent

Brent David Colbert

Second Defendant/respondent

Scott Maynard

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory Injunction) / Ex Parte Interim Injunction Application (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents owe fiduciary duties to the second applicant as de facto directors
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting an interim injunction ex parte

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried and, on balance of convenience, a limited ex parte interim injunction was justified to prevent imminent prejudice to the applicants; accordingly respondents were restrained from soliciting present clients of UCFX for a limited time, while the remainder of the application is to be litigated with the respondents given notice.

Court Disposition

Limited interim injunction granted ex parte in part; application otherwise reserved and not finally disposed

Orders

  • Respondents are restrained from directly or indirectly canvassing, soliciting, or attempting to solicit, serve or act for any present client of UCFX (including those in the applicants' filed schedule)
  • The restraint expires at 4:00 pm on 26 March 2015 unless renewed