Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Paewai v Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi t/a Te Mangai Paho
26 Apr 2007, PR Stapp, WA 63/07, (8 pages)
INJUNCTION - Interim reinstatement - Applicant summarily dismissed for serious misconduct, including bullying - Applicant had arguable case - Reimbursement of lost wages and compensation may be inadequate for loss of senior position, given type of position and industry - Arguable nature of case meant right to work should be preserved until substantive investigation - Work and paid employment clearly important to applicant - Balance of convenience favoured applicant - Matter filed quickly - Claimed not being at work caused isolation and cut off from industry - Applicant agreed return to work would be awkward - Overall justice favoured applicant - No reason reinstatement could not involve garden leave - Respondent submitted no position for applicant but not opposed to garden leave without conditions - Supported seriousness with which respondent considered decision and safety concerns for complainants - Waiver of conditions on garden meant undertaking for dames did not apply to wages - Interim reinstatement on garden leave ordered - Parties directed to mediation - Manager
Result: Application granted ; Interim reinstatement ordered ; Parties directed to mediation ; Costs reserved
Petersons Global Sales Ltd & Anor v Peterson & Anor
12 Jun 2007, D King, AA 173A/07, (8 pages)
INJUNCTION – RESTRAINT OF TRADE - Application for injunctions to prevent respondents from displaying prototype sawmill at Hamilton Field Days – Urgent hearing to deal with injunctions - Authority issued earlier oral determination - Reasons for earlier oral determination - Applicants (“PGSL”) and (“P&B”) also sought penalties, enquiry into damages, and removal of references from respondents’ website - Applicants claimed owned rights in prototype – Claimed respondents breached employment agreements by developing it in company time using company resources or in competition with applicants, used confidential information and trades secrets – PGSL agreed to source all sawmill products from second respondent's company (“PPSSL”) – PPSSL defaulted on agreement - All designs, trademarks and patents transferred to PGSL – Pursuant to further agreement, patents in first respondent's name transferred to P&B – Following liquidation of PPSSL, respondents worked for applicants – Employment agreements had confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses - First respondent had designed prototype, and second respondent continued its redevelopment until employment terminated – Respondents continued work on prototype and lodged patent applications in own names – First respondent told to cease private work for own benefit, and subsequently resigned – Authority found, given existence of agreements, clear argument PGSL owned intellectual property, not respondents – Whether work on prototype carried out in private capacity or as employees, and whether conflict of interest, at issue – Arguable case – Not granting injunction meant prototype in public arena without having been tested - May damage applicants’ reputations and have deleterious effect on sales – Competitors would gain access to secret information - Applicants risked permanent detriment - Balance of convenience and overall justice of case favoured applicants - Injunctions ordered – Certain references agreed to be removed from website
Result: Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Shone v Gisborne Intermediate School Board of Trustees
24 Sep 2007, R Arthur, AA 294/07, (14 pages)
INJUNCTION - Applicant sought injunction to prevent respondent stopping pay while awaited trial on criminal charges – Collective Employment Agreement ("CEA") provided if alleged conduct deemed sufficiently serious employee may be either suspended with or without pay or transferred temporarily to other duties – CEA did not provide for particularly serious allegation to automatically require suspension without pay – Once hurdle of sufficient seriousness reached, all three options equally open to respondent – How parties intended for respondent to choose between options not answered by plain reading of CEA – Powers and obligations of respondent to be interpreted consistently with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law important to rule of law in society – Respondent's decision to suspend without pay, in circumstance of impending trial on criminal charges, carried inevitable taint of guilt – Applicant entitled to benefit of presumption until decision made by Court – Parties could not have intended suspension without pay while awaiting trial – Respondent’s proposal neither fair nor reasonable in all circumstances – As no formal decision made by respondent to change basis of suspension, no orders presently needed – Leave reserved to apply should position change
Result: Application dismissed ; no order for costs
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
