PLAN B WEALTH MANAGEMENT V FOWLER AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7521

PLAN B WEALTH MANAGEMENT V FOWLER AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7521

Documents generated by the plaintiff and its parent in the lead-up to the August 2006 agreement that relate to the need for, duration of, or terms of clause 1(q) are relevant and discoverable; however wide-ranging discovery (precedent materials, internal negotiation strategy beyond clause 1(q), and documents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-ea37a54d_eec7_4f8c_bc7d_58108c64b6f9.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Plan B Wealth Management; First Defendant: Alexander John Fowler; Second Defendant: Fowler & Associates Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Breach of Covenant / Restraint of Trade / Claim for Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery (pre Trial)
Outcome
Limited discovery ordered; broad discovery refused; costs allocated for non-party compliance; no overall costs order for the application.
Legal Topics
Non Solicitation Clause, Enforceability of Restraint, Discovery Relevance and Scope, Reasonableness of Covenant Duration
Contract Law Restraint of Trade Civil Procedure Equity (injunctions) Non Solicitation Clause Enforceability of Restraint Discovery Relevance and Scope Reasonableness of Covenant Duration

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plan B Wealth Management

Plaintiff

Alexander John Fowler

First Defendant

Fowler & Associates Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Breach of Covenant / Restraint of Trade / Claim for Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 1(q) (non-solicitation) is enforceable or an unreasonable restraint of trade
  2. 2 Whether internal documents of purchaser/parent are relevant to reasonableness of the restraint
  3. 3 Proper scope of particular discovery sought by defendants including related transactions

Ratio Decidendi

Documents generated by the plaintiff and its parent in the lead-up to the August 2006 agreement that relate to the need for, duration of, or terms of clause 1(q) are relevant and discoverable; however wide-ranging discovery (precedent materials, internal negotiation strategy beyond clause 1(q), and documents relating to unrelated Rutherford Rede/Don Low transactions) is not appropriate and is refused; limited affidavits complying with High Court Rules were ordered instead.

Court Disposition

Limited discovery ordered; broad discovery refused; costs allocated for non-party compliance; no overall costs order for the application.

Orders

  • By 27 March 2009 the plaintiff and its parent Plan B Group Holdings Limited must file and serve affidavits complying with High Court Rules 8.24 and 8.26 listing any documents in their possession or power relating to or connected with the need for clause 1(q) or to the terms of that clause (including duration)...
  • Defendants to pay Plan B Group Holdings Limited as a non-party the reasonable costs incurred by that company in complying with this order.