TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD AND ANOR V COLEMAN AND BRADLEY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-3208

TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD AND ANOR V COLEMAN AND BRADLEY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-3208

The interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there was a marginally serious issue to try about whether clause 11 applied to Daniel, the plaintiff did not establish a strong case of breach and the balance of convenience tipped to the defendants given the lack of clear evidence of likely irreparable harm and the prospect of a prompt three-day trial.

Citation
openlaw-519da56c_fbb4_4c0d_b295_d38f70c46c8a.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: TMA Group of Companies Limited; Second Plaintiff: Premier Business Forms NZ Limited; First Defendant: Keith Andrew Coleman and Bradley Trustee Company Limited; Second Defendant: Lorna Mary Coleman; Daniel Andrew Coleman; Prince & Partners Trustee Company Limited; Third Defendant: Keith Andrew Coleman; Fourth Defendant: Lorna Mary Coleman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application / Interim Injunction Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory application for interim injunction declined
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade Clause Interpretation, Goodwill Valuation, Breach of Contract, Balance of Convenience for Interim Injunctions, Rectification Allegation
Contract Law Restraint of Trade Equity Commercial Litigation Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Clause Interpretation Goodwill Valuation Breach of Contract +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TMA Group of Companies Limited

First Plaintiff

Premier Business Forms NZ Limited

Second Plaintiff

Keith Andrew Coleman and Bradley Trustee Company Limited

First Defendant

Lorna Mary Coleman; Daniel Andrew Coleman; Prince & Partners Trustee Company Limited

Second Defendant

Keith Andrew Coleman

Third Defendant

Lorna Mary Coleman

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application / Interim Injunction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried that clause 11 (restraint) binds Daniel Coleman
  2. 2 Whether Daniel Coleman has breached clause 11 by taking employment with Sato
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favour granting an interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there was a marginally serious issue to try about whether clause 11 applied to Daniel, the plaintiff did not establish a strong case of breach and the balance of convenience tipped to the defendants given the lack of clear evidence of likely irreparable harm and the prospect of a prompt three-day trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application for interim injunction declined

Orders

  • Costs reserved
  • Three-day fixture to commence in the week of 19 September 2011