| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 19/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P R Stapp |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Ron Richdale Fire Equipment Services Ltd v Beaumont |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Applicant sought to enforce alleged restraint of trade on respondent – Respondent previously employed by L services – L services sold to applicant effective under sale and purchase agreement (SPA) – SPA agreement included restraint of trade clause – Respondent signed SPA personally; acknowledging covenants – SPA included transfer of key client T – Respondent provided individual employment agreement (“IEA”) but IEA never signed as respondent believed matters covered in SPA – Respondent resigned – Applicant discovered respondent employed by T – Respondent did not challenge applicant’s evidence that completed same certification work for T that was completing for applicant - Respondent argued Authority had no jurisdiction regarding SPA – Also argued IEA unsigned and unresolved on restraint of trade issue – Applicant accepted SPA did not have particular covenant retraining respondent personally although terms contained restraint – Authority found agreement reached on SPA not enforceable in Authority – Found agreement was between vendor and purchaser, and respondent not employee of applicant at time – However, Authority found had jurisdiction to scrutinise terms and conditions of respondent’s employment when became employee – Found able to give consideration to SPA because related to relationship respondent agreed to undertake with applicant – Found able to do so because respondent personally signed to fulfil covenants – Found matters related to employment relationship restricted to operation of covenants only – Found did not include restraint of trade – Found no restraint of trade applying to respondent personally – COSTS – Parties accepted costs followed the event – Found costs not to exceed usual tariff range – Applicant ordered to pay respondent $3,000 contribution to costs |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($3,000) |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 19_10.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |