New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-solicitation clause

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2022

NUWAVE SOFTWARE LIMITED v OBJECTIVE CORPORATION SOLUTIONS NZ LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2511

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2511
Court

High Court

The Court granted a narrowly tailored interim injunction because there was a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured preserving GoCouncil's client base, damages were not an adequate remedy given evidentiary and practical difficulties, and the injunction was proportionate and clear; the Court also treated the acquisition's contravention of s 47 as relevant to the interests of justice in granting interim relief.
19 Dec 2013

SPICERS PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v CUNNINGHAM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3523

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3523
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried on the enforceability and alleged breach of the non-trading limb of clause 10.1; preservation of the status quo better protects Spicers' interests pending trial; accordingly an interim injunction restrained defendants from soliciting or trading on behalf of Spicers' clients, limited in duration to the six month period in clause 10.1, should be granted.
25 Jun 2010

ABC DEVELOPMENTAL LEARNING CENTRES (NZ) LIMITED V ARTEMIS EARLY LEARNING LIMITED AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-001198

Citation

openlaw-59d15511_92ba_473a_92ec_e90363828f0c.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff demonstrated a serious question to be tried and a strong case on the facts and law, the Court, by the narrowest margin, declined to grant an interim injunction because of the balance of convenience and overall justice given the short remaining restraint period, the impact on innocent third parties and adequacy of proposals (undertakings and monitoring) to mitigate risk while preserving the plaintiff's substantive rights.
16 Mar 2009

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

Citation

openlaw-ea37a54d_eec7_4f8c_bc7d_58108c64b6f9.pdf
Court

High Court

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.

New Zealand Case Law

NUWAVE SOFTWARE LIMITED v OBJECTIVE CORPORATION SOLUTIONS NZ LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2511

SPICERS PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v CUNNINGHAM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3523

ABC DEVELOPMENTAL LEARNING CENTRES (NZ) LIMITED V ARTEMIS EARLY LEARNING LIMITED AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-001198

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