Tyre Collection Services Limited v Le Roy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-409-000060 [2016] NZHC 788

BETWEEN

TYRE COLLECTION SERVICES

LIMITED Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL BENNY LE ROY First Defendant

AND

JAMISON INVESTMENTS LIMITED Second Defendant

AND

TYRE RECYCLING SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:	20 April 2016
Appearances:	G A Biggs for Plaintiff D J Ballantyne for the First, Second and Third Defendants
Judgment:	22 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1]      On 10 March 2016, I granted an interim injunction restraining the first and second defendants from being involved with tyre recycling or tyre collections until further order of the Court, and restraining the third defendant from assisting the first and second defendants in any way in such activities.  The defendants have appealed that decision.

[2]      The defendants now seek a stay of execution of the interim injunction orders while  their  appeal  is  pursued.   The  grounds  for  the  stay  are  wide-ranging  and

include:

TYRE COLLECTION SERVICES LIMITED v LE ROY [2016] NZHC 788 [22 April 2016]

(a)      if  the  stay is  not  granted  the  applicants’ appeal  may be  rendered nugatory because:

(i)the  interim   injunction   prevents  Tyre  Recycling  Services New Zealand Limited (TRSNZL) from normal trading in that it cannot continue to contract its sole contractor, Jamison Investments Limited (JIL), service its customer base, and meet its day to day expenses, including staff costs;

(ii)JIL cannot contract to TRSNZL and has been unable to find alternative uses for its tyre collection trucks;

(iii)Mr Le Roy has no source of income through JIL, and has provided guarantees in support of JIL’s borrowing to purchase its branded tyre collection trucks;

(b)the  judgment  is  adversely  affecting  the  interests  of  third  parties including TRSNZL’s customers, employees and the market for tyre recycling/collection services;

(c)       the applicants have substantial and bona fide grounds of appeal;

(d)if the applicants’ appeal is unsuccessful, the respondent’s interests will be preserved by an enquiry into damages;

(e)      the overall balance of convenience lies in staying execution of the judgment appealed against to maintain the status quo prior to the judgment.

[3]      While  the  defendants  have  sought  to  have  their  appeal  fast  tracked,  on

19 April 2016, they received a minute from the Court of Appeal declining to do so. In making that decision the Court noted that Mr Le Roy and JIL have:

(a)       the    benefit    of    Tyre    Collection    Services    Limited’s    (TCSL’s)

undertaking as to damages; and

(b)      proper  grounds  to  apply  to  the  High  Court  for  a  priority trial  of

TCSL’s substantive claim.

[4]      The refusal to fast track the appeal means the practical effect of granting a stay is to reverse the grant of the interim injunction for at least three to six months until the appeal is heard.  The issue before me is whether I should grant a stay in those circumstances, having regard to the further evidence before me at this time.

Background

[5]      The background to this application is more fully set out in my judgment granting the interim injunction.1   However, in summary, the plaintiff, TCSL,…