| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 212 |
| Determination date | 20 July 2015 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | R Amaranathan ; B Smith |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | EWP Saled Ltd v Tibbitts |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed interpretation of compliance clause in settlement agreement (“SA”) – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought order for compliance with SA - PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s failure to comply with SA |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Clause requires respondent not to establish, purchase or obtain interest in competing business with restraint of trade geographical area, but allows respondent to work in waged or salaried position in competing business. Question answered in favour of applicant.;COMPLIANCE ORDER: No evidence that respondent received dividend from or director of competing business. Respondent allowed family home to be used for operational purposes of competing business, which constituted direct interest in competing business. Respondent had financial interest in business. Unlikely that business would exist but for respondent’s experience and knowledge. Respondent not working in salaried or waged position. Respondent in breach of SA. Order for compliance with SA made.;PENALTY: Respondent already penalised for breach of SA. No penalty. |
| Result | Application granted (compliance order) ; Question answered in favour of applicant ; Orders made ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s135(4);ERA s137(2);ERA s137(3);ERA s149;Property (Relationships) Act 1976 |
| Cases Cited | EWP Sales Ltd v Tibbitts [2015] NZERA Auckland 196;EWP Sales Ltd v Tibbitts [2015] NZHC 619 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_212.pdf [pdf 185 KB] |