New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Goodwill protection

Legal area

Court

28 Sept 2020

M AND L HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED v WHENUA PRODUCTIONS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2541

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2541
Court

High Court

The Court granted interim injunctive relief because it was seriously arguable that the defendants had breached enforceable post-termination restraints protecting M&L's legitimate interests in goodwill and client connections; damages would be difficult to quantify and the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured an injunction limited in scope to Auckland South and within 50 kilometres and limited in duration to one year pending final determination.
30 May 2019

MAINLAND DIGITAL MARKETING LTD v WILLETTS & VON NORDECK MEYERS [2019] NZHC 1201

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1201
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was denied because, although there is a serious question to be tried that the respondents' Bayleys employment may infringe the restraint, the respondents have a genuinely arguable interpretation defence as to the scope of the restraint; much of the goodwill appears personal to the respondents; damages would address much of MDM's loss; and on balance of convenience and overall justice an interim injunction would be inappropriate pending a focused hearing on contractual interpretation.
27 Mar 2019

MAD BUTCHER HOLDINGS LTD v STANDARD 730 LTD [2019] NZHC 589

Citation

[2019] NZHC 589
Court

High Court

At the interlocutory stage the Court found MBH has a strongly arguable case that clause 22 extends to post‑term independent trading from the same premises, that MBH has a legitimate interest in protecting goodwill and the franchise model, that damages would likely be an inadequate remedy for MBH, and that the balance of convenience and overall justice favour interim relief; accordingly a conditional interim injunction was granted.
21 Jun 2016

SPECIALISED STRUCTURES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v FINDLATER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1340

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1340
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that SSNZL possessed a protectable proprietary interest and goodwill; damages would not necessarily protect that goodwill; the balance of convenience favoured a limited interim injunction preventing FCL from acting with Fair Dinkum Sheds or similar competitors in Marlborough for the remainder of the 12 month restraint (treated as commencing 12 October 2015), with specified project exclusions; stay for failure to use dispute resolution was not appropriate because clause 41.11 permits injunctive relief for irreparable harm.
27 Aug 2015

MIKE PERO (NEW ZEALAND) LTD v HEATH & ORS [2015] NZHC 2040

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2040
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favors interim relief: the franchisor has a strongly arguable proprietary interest in its System and goodwill and the respondents intend to compete in breach of the restraints; accordingly interim injunctive relief was granted restraining the first, second and third respondents from breaching the franchise restraints, preservation orders were continued, inspection/forensic copy orders were refused, and no separate injunction against the fourth respondent was ordered as unnecessary.

New Zealand Case Law

M AND L HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED v WHENUA PRODUCTIONS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2541

MAINLAND DIGITAL MARKETING LTD v WILLETTS & VON NORDECK MEYERS [2019] NZHC 1201

MAD BUTCHER HOLDINGS LTD v STANDARD 730 LTD [2019] NZHC 589

SPECIALISED STRUCTURES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v FINDLATER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1340

MIKE PERO (NEW ZEALAND) LTD v HEATH & ORS [2015] NZHC 2040