| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 171/08 |
| Hearing date | 13 Nov 2008 |
| Determination date | 20 November 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R Thompson ; G Brodie |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Canstaff Christchurch Ltd v Hinds and Ors |
| Other Parties | Hinds, New Zealand Employment Solutions Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - First respondent only respondent ever in employment relationship with applicant – Third respondent was company incorporated by second respondent – Authority found no jurisdiction to grant relief against second and third respondents, as outside employment relationship – INJUNCTION – Applicant sought interim injunction preventing respondents from trading and causing further damage to applicant – Applicant claimed respondents breached statutory and implied duties while employed, breached employment agreement (“EA”), in particular restraint of trade and non-solicitation clauses – Respondents denied wrongdoing, contended applicant repudiated EA, and alleged clauses of EA unenforceable as too broad – Authority considered injunctive relief against first respondent only – Found no arguable case – Authority not satisfied by affidavit evidence that applicant able to justify interim intervention – Found respondent’s allegations about applicant’s behaviour serious – Found clauses in EA unenforceable as seeking to limit competition rather than protect proprietary interests – Found balance of convenience lay with status quo – Found no evidence damages not appropriate remedy if first respondent found guilty of wrongdoing – Found overall justice required continuation of status quo pending substantive hearing – Authority not satisfied applicant had any proprietary interest to protect in EA, even assuming clauses legal – Found size and scope of respondents’ business raised doubt that could inflict damage on applicant, even if applicant could show had legal interest entitled to protect – Authority found untested evidence supported respondent’s argument applicant repudiated EA, making EA null and without force or effect – Found various inadequacies apparent in restraint of trade clauses – Injunctive relief declined - COSTS – ï¾½ day investigation meeting – Respondents sought contribution of $3,000 to costs – Respondents claimed matter urgent, involved reasonable degree of research and preparation of significant affidavit evidence – Applicant argued costs of $750 appropriate – Authority found application completely unsuccessful and respondents entitled to reasonable contribution to costs – Found was complex matter dealt with expeditiously – Found $2,000 costs appropriate - Recruitment consultant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Transnet NZ Ltd v Dulhunty Power (NZ) Ltd & Ors [2007] ERNZ 379 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 171_08.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |