Wilson Parking is locked in a $6 million legal fight with a former employee who now owns a company that is in competition with it.
Wilson Parking told the Employment Relations Authority former employee Peter Turner breached his employment agreement, duty of good faith and various fiduciary duties, and ATE Property aided and abetted the breaches.
It is seeking damages, an account of profits, and a declaration that receivables gained by Turner and ATE, during the operation of the ATE business, are held on trust for Wilson Parking and will be handed over.
Turner and ATE denied liability.
ATE was incorporated in 2024 with Turner as the sole shareholder and director.
Wilson Parking also filed a claim in the High Court, with causes of action based on knowing receipt, knowing assistance and breach of the duty of confidence.
ATE responded to the High Court claim by questioning the High Court’s jurisdiction, raising an objection.
It argued Wilson Parking’s claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority, based on an earlier Supreme Court decision.
Wilson Parking said the authority could not grant equitable remedies, so the claim was appropriately filed.
In a decision on 1 August, Associate Judge Paulsen found that the authority had exclusive jurisdiction over Wilson Parking’s equitable claims against ATE and he dismissed the High Court claim.
Wilson Parking then applied to remove the employment relationship problem to the Employment Court. It said there was uncertainty about the authority’s power to award some of the remedies it was seeking.
The morning’s headlines in 90 seconds, including police fatally shoot a woman in Christchurch, sausages recalled over glass fears, and why McDonalds Japan isn’t loving its customers right now (Source: 1News)
It said that removal to the employment court would also mean all the claims would be heard in one place at the same time.
Complex expert evidence would need to be analysed, Wilson Parking said, and there was a significant amount at stake, of more than $6 million.
Authority member Peter van Keulen was unconvinced by some of Wilson Parking’s arguments to move the case to the Employment Court – he said the authority had the necessary experience and skill to deal with complex disputes involving significant sums.
But he said the employment relationship problem had serious questions of law regarding the authority’s jurisdiction, and a move was appropriate.
Alison Maelzer, a partner at Hesketh Henry, said it was not unheard of for an employer to bring claims against an employee or former employee, and also to add in the former employee’s new employer, where it was alleged that the new employer had helped to breach the former employee’s obligations.
“This is usually in matters involving a breach of confidentiality or breaches of restraints of trade or non-solicitation obligations – where the former employee is alleged to have taken confidential information, given it to the new employer, and the new employer has known about this or encouraged it. “
She said Wilson Parking’s case was unusual because of the claims filed in both the High Court and the Employment Relations Authority.
“The High Court essentially struck out the general civil claims on the basis that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims.
“This was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in FMV v TZB which found that if a dispute arose out of an employment relationship, it belonged in the Employment Relations Authority.
“This was the case even if the dispute had been framed or could have been framed as a tort and put before the general courts. In other words, if it could be framed as an employment claim, the Employment Relations Authority would have exclusive jurisdiction. This was a matter to be determined on the facts – i.e. figuring out whether the dispute arose out of the employment relationship, or whether the employment relationship was incidental to the dispute.”
She said the former employer was seeking equitable remedies and was likely to add in the claims/remedies in relation to the matters that had been kicked out of the High Court.
“While the Supreme Court in FMZ v TZB found that the Employment Relations Authority had jurisdiction to award the necessary remedies to address employment relationship problems, it was not clear whether this included equitable remedies. The Employment Relations Authority therefore decided to remove the matter to the Employment Court to determine the whether the Authority had this jurisdiction, and if so, what remedies could be awarded. “
She said because Wilson Parking was seeking about $6m in remedies, the claims would require extensive and complex expert evidence.
“This is unusual for an employment matter.”
rnz.co.nz