New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Springboard injunction

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2023

VISION PERSONAL TRAINING v WILLIAMS [2023] NZHC 2848

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2848
Court

High Court

Court found there is a serious question to be tried that Mr Williams was involved in and facilitated The Right Fit's use of Vision PT confidential and copyrighted materials; balance of convenience favoured plaintiffs because injunction is narrowly tailored and limited harm to plaintiffs would otherwise be irreparable; conditional interim injunction granted restraining disclosure, copying and solicitation and, on payment of NZD 15,000 security, restraining Mr Williams' involvement with The Right Fit; consent orders made against second and third defendants; plaintiffs to provide security to sup…
17 Jul 2020

MODA SYSTEMS AMERICA LLC v GUARDIAN BANDSAWS LTD [2020] NZHC 1737

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1737
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a serious question to be tried on both exclusivity under clause 2.1 and misuse of confidential information, but on balance of convenience and given the plain wording of clause 2.1 and lack of clear evidence of specific confidential material supplied, an injunction preventing GBL from selling into North America was refused; however damages would be inadequate to protect Moda US from misuse of confidential information, so a narrowly tailored interim injunction was granted restraining GBL from using confidential information within the pleaded categories that it received…
20 May 2015

PLUMPTON v TERRY [2015] NZHC 1089

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1089
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that the defendants, acting together, misused UCFX confidential information and breached fiduciary duties; the balance of convenience favoured granting limited interim 'springboard' relief to preserve the status quo and prevent unjust enrichment that damages would inadequately remedy, so interim injunctions were granted restraining defendants from contacting or acting for present UCFX clients for two months and from using or retaining confidential information and from acting or holding themselves out as directors pending further order.
11 Oct 2012

PROPERTYIQ NZ LTD v VICELICH and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-003693

Citation

openlaw-45d23f74_3553_4672_bb63_1daf4406a4ca.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held PropertyIQ had a seriously arguable case that the disputed compiled materials were confidential and that the former employee was under obligations of confidence; given the risk of irreparable harm and defendants' inability to show legitimate ongoing use, the balance of convenience favoured interim injunctive relief restraining use and disclosure of the identified confidential information until trial (or further order).
25 Feb 2011

BUSHETTS TRANSPORT LIMITED v GRAHAM ROGER LOWES AND TONY IAN LOWES HC WN CIV 2011-485-131

Citation

openlaw-bfe312f5_6efa_4766_9f64_0994811c18df.pdf
Court

High Court

On the strength of the uncontroverted and circumstantial evidence there was a strongly arguable case that the Lowes and Foot used BTL information and depot as a springboard and that CHB benefited; full prohibition on CHB trading was refused because Foot agreed to transfer her shares and cease employment with CHB within 14 days, but a limited interim restraint was granted preventing the second to fourth defendants from directly or indirectly soliciting named BTL clients (those BTL serviced in the last 12 months) identified on an Empower-derived list to be provided by the plaintiffs, effective…
7 Dec 2006

BRADFORD TRUST LIMITED AS TRUSTEE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES TRADING TRUST (T/A INTERCLEAN) V PAUL EDWARD ROEBECK LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-007111

Citation

openlaw-e44b5ef7_e341_4fd6_9da7_fa1b51623bc8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held there was a serious question to be tried that the first and second defendants breached fiduciary duties by diverting the State Highway 20 opportunity and misusing plaintiff's confidential information, that third, fourth and fifth defendants were properly joined given the interrelationships and use of corporate vehicles, and that the balance of convenience and risk of unjust enrichment of the defendants warranted interlocutory (springboard) injunctions for a limited period (protecting client contact details and non-solicitation until 31 March 2007 and restraining use of other co…

New Zealand Case Law

VISION PERSONAL TRAINING v WILLIAMS [2023] NZHC 2848

MODA SYSTEMS AMERICA LLC v GUARDIAN BANDSAWS LTD [2020] NZHC 1737

PLUMPTON v TERRY [2015] NZHC 1089

PROPERTYIQ NZ LTD v VICELICH and ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-003693

BUSHETTS TRANSPORT LIMITED v GRAHAM ROGER LOWES AND TONY IAN LOWES HC WN CIV 2011-485-131

BRADFORD TRUST LIMITED AS TRUSTEE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES TRADING TRUST (T/A INTERCLEAN) V PAUL EDWARD ROEBECK LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-007111