| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 259 |
| Determination date | 31 July 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | T McGinn ; R Harrison |
| Parties | Kelly Services (New Zealand) Ltd v Pottingers and Ors |
| Other Parties | Nine Dot Consulting Ltd, Carew |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – RESTRAINT OF TRADE – Parties disputed scope of interim injunction – Authority listed twelve customers covered by interim injunction – Authority listed one customer not covered by interim injunction as no evidence first or third respondents had dealings with customer – Authority listed two customers not covered by interim injunction as not customers of applicant when first and third respondents had dealings with them – Authority listed one customer not covered by interim injunction as not customer of applicant – Managers |
| Abstract | First and third respondents employed by applicants as managers. Parties disputed scope of interim injunction. First and third respondents resigned from applicant and subsequently employed by second respondent. Employment agreements between applicant and first and third respondents contained restraint of trade clause. Authority granted interim injunction preventing respondents soliciting or accepting business or work from applicant’s customers with whom first and third respondents had dealings within twelve months of termination of employment. Parties disputed whether certain customers of applicant covered by interim injunction.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION – RESTRAINT OF TRADE: ‘Customer’ meant person or company provided with services by applicant in return for payment, or person or company who had entered into agreement with applicant to receive those services. ‘Dealings’ meant first and / or third respondent had business related transactions with customer. Authority listed twelve customers covered by interim injunction. Authority listed one customer not covered by interim injunction as no evidence first or third respondents had dealings with customer. Authority listed two customers not covered by interim injunction as not customers of applicant when first and third respondents had dealings with them. Authority listed one customer not covered by interim injunction as not customer of applicant. |
| Result | Application partially granted; Orders made |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Enterprise Staff Consultants NZ Ltd v Durno [1998] 3 ERNZ 547;Kelly Services (New Zealand) Ltd v Pottinger [2012] NZERA Auckland 150 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_259.pdf [pdf 207 KB] |