PHOTO
Lawyers for the former South Island boss of New Zealand’s largest carpark management company say the restraint of trade clause in his employment contract was unreasonable and unenforceable.
Wilson Parking alleges Mainland Parking founder Peter Turner plotted his departure from the company and lined up future clients while still employed by Wilson Parking and subject to a restraint of trade.
The company is seeking Mainland’s lease agreements and profits, along with Turner’s shares in the business, salary payments and costs – claims that could potentially total $25 million.
A four-week hearing in the Employment Court at Christchurch is nearing an end, with Turner’s legal team having delivered closing submissions today. Wilson’s lawyers are due to close the case on Monday.
Turner joined Wilson in 2013 and resigned in August 2023. The company alleges he signed new leases shortly before leaving in September, all with short terms designed to make them available for his new venture.
Today, lawyers for Turner and his company, ATE Property, argued the restraint of trade clause was void and unenforceable.
Glenn Jones, representing ATE Property, told the court Wilson had failed to establish the “reasonableness” of the restraint, which he said had to be assessed at the time Turner entered into the contract, not when his employment ended.
“It was unreasonable, unenforceable and void when he entered into the contract.”
Jones argued the 12-month restraint was unreasonable when the agreement was signed in 2013 and denied any lease agreements had been obtained through misuse of confidential information.
“Knowledge of sites in Christchurch and who owns them is not a trade secret after the relationship has ended; information carried in Mr Turner’s head is not confidential.
“There is a distinction between an employee who remembers contacts and one who cuts and pastes.
“An employee who remembers someone is allowed to do business with them; what an employee is not allowed to do is take away information.”
Turner’s lawyer, Dean Russ, said his client accepted he was bound by a restraint, but not the one Wilson was seeking to enforce.
He questioned what restraint applied in light of the “cascading” provisions contained in Turner’s employment agreements over the years.
“Mr Turner was employed as an operations manager; in my submission, his role was low-level management. He had no autonomy and no access to confidential information or relationships with landlords; his role was operational.
“What he did know was where the Wilson carparks were, the layout of them, who owned them, and he knew the pricing charges.
“All of those matters were in the public domain, nothing secret, nothing confidential; he didn’t have access to client lists.”
Russ said there were several management layers above Turner during his early years with the company.
While Turner’s reporting lines changed after his promotion to regional manager in 2020, Russ said his contractual authority remained limited.
“He was not authorised to enter into management agreements.
“It is accepted he had access to confidential information, but it was subject to controls.
“He was required to provide accurate reporting on market trends and opportunities; he was subject to an annual review and had regular contact with senior management.
“He was in regular phone contact with seniors, and they would drive around various sites and get a feel what was on the ground in Christchurch.”
Wilson Parking uncovered the business in November 2024 and sent Turner a letter the following month asking him to preserve evidence.
The case is being heard by Judge Helen Doyle.
- Al Williams, Open Justice reporter