SMITH ELEMENTS & CONTROLS LTD v EPI GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 336

SMITH ELEMENTS & CONTROLS LTD v EPI GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 336

The Court declined to grant further or substitute interim relief and maintained the existing consent interim/interim orders because the parties had not shown compelling reasons to displace the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, both parties delayed appointment of an arbitrator (and did not seek an emergency arbitrator), and the dispute should be determined by the arbitrator; accordingly Whata J's interim/interim measures remain in place pending arbitration or further order.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 336
Parties
Plaintiff: Smith Elements & Controls Limited; First Defendant: EPI Group Limited; Second Defendant: Introl Products Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Interim Application/hearing (high Court)
Outcome
Application for further interim orders declined; existing consent interim/interim orders maintained
Legal Topics
Interim Measures, Jurisdiction, Contract Construction, Non Compete Clause, Dispute Resolution
Arbitration Contract Injunctions Restraint of Trade Interim Measures Jurisdiction Contract Construction Non Compete Clause +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith Elements & Controls Limited

Plaintiff

EPI Group Limited

First Defendant

Introl Products Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Interim Application/hearing (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant further interim measures under art 9 sch 1 Arbitration Act 1996 or leave interim relief to the arbitral tribunal
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 5.2 of the supply agreement: whether 'supply' includes approaching customers or steps to secure future supply
  3. 3 Whether Whata J's consent interim/interim orders should be varied or continued

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to grant further or substitute interim relief and maintained the existing consent interim/interim orders because the parties had not shown compelling reasons to displace the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, both parties delayed appointment of an arbitrator (and did not seek an emergency arbitrator), and the dispute should be determined by the arbitrator; accordingly Whata J's interim/interim measures remain in place pending arbitration or further order.

Court Disposition

Application for further interim orders declined; existing consent interim/interim orders maintained

Orders

  • Whata J's interim/interim order remains in force restraining both plaintiff and first defendant (by directors, agents and employees) from approaching any customers or competitors of the plaintiff with a view to supplying them products or goods as defined in the supply agreement until 31 May 2018, subject to: (a)...
  • No further interim/substitute orders granted; parties to appoint arbitrator per clause 9 of the supply agreement or seek arbitration remedies including emergency arbitrator if required