New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-compete

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2016

AMP SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED v VISSER [2016] NZHC 134

Citation

[2016] NZHC 134
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried that the defendant breached the restraint clauses; on balance of convenience AMP's strong prima facie case and the inadequacy or difficulty of quantifying damages for loss of client relationships outweigh the defendant's defences; overall justice requires granting an interim injunction but limited geographically to what is reasonably necessary to protect AMP's purchased business (injunction granted with geographic carve-out south of 15 km radius of Palmerston North and north of Warkworth).
23 Aug 2012

PARA RUBBER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v BAILEY HC PMN CIV 2012-454-491

Citation

openlaw-e577e1ee_0d31_494d_a6d9_acebf6f0041c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a serious question to be tried that the first defendant was in breach of clause 13.4 in relation to synthetic or natural rubber and foam and that the balance of convenience favored granting a narrowly tailored interim restraint preventing the first defendant's involvement in the promotion, distribution, marketing or supply of synthetic or natural rubber or foam and ordering transfer of the telephone and facsimile numbers to the plaintiff; injunctive relief in relation to pools, pumps, filters and chemicals was refused because the likely harm to the defendant and ambi…
4 Aug 2011

TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED V COLEMAN HC AK CIV-2011-404-3208

Citation

openlaw-a5a41edc_9287_4d3a_9e15_8cb9288f565d.pdf
Court

High Court

The discretionary power under r 4.56 to add a party was not exercised because no cause of action or relief was pleaded against the proposed fifth defendant and the proposed defendant opposed joinder; joiner for the sole purpose of obtaining documents is unjustified when alternative procedures and striking‑out powers under r 15.1 are available.
6 Mar 2007

WARWICK V LIVE ENVIRONMENTS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2007 485 407

Citation

openlaw-a015c095_0a6e_470b_a942_73b86ff6d787.pdf
Court

High Court

Interim injunctive relief was refused because the plaintiff did not seek permanent injunctions, damages were an adequate remedy supported by available financial information and valuation processes, and the parties' relationship had broken down so that court‑ordered continuation of the business relationship would risk ongoing disputes and injustice; accordingly the interim application was dismissed and the prior interim order discharged.

New Zealand Case Law

AMP SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED v VISSER [2016] NZHC 134

PARA RUBBER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v BAILEY HC PMN CIV 2012-454-491

TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED V COLEMAN HC AK CIV-2011-404-3208

WARWICK V LIVE ENVIRONMENTS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2007 485 407