‘Not a strong case’: Waikato rural mail operator loses injunction bid against NZ Post

Danielle and Ian Kennedy outside the High Court at Hamilton lost their bed for an injunction. They will take the next few days to assess what to do next. Photo / Belinda Feek

A Waikato couple have lost their bid for a High Court injunction against NZ Post to keep their rural delivery business alive.

Ian and Danielle Kennedy, who own Three Hills Group (THG) that operates an RD3 route around Cambridge and Tamahere, have been left jobless and will take the next few days to decide their next steps.

At the heart of the dispute was the Kennedys’ claim that NZ Post has been redirecting mail and freight from their run since shortly after the couple began operating in April 2019.

While Justice Ian Gault found there was a serious question over the legality of NZ Post’s axing of the contract and the exclusivity of clients, there were more reasons not to grant the injunction, including the pair’s working relationship now being deemed “untenable”.

“While there are serious questions to be tried, THG has not established a strong case,” Justice Gault wrote in his decision.

The Kennedys had sought the injunction to stop the termination of their contract until the case could get to trial.

Documents show the couple poured $490,000 into buying the business and vans for their run that services schools, rest homes, a golf course, Hamilton Airport, shops, restaurants and cafes and myriad wholesale and retail businesses, as well as rural residents of Tamahere.

Speaking on behalf of the couple, Pro Drivers Advocates chief executive Peter Gallagher said THG’s contract ended on Friday, the day after Justice Gault delivered his reserved decision.

They would spend the next few days weighing up their options, “including a means to honour the loyalty which they established with their rural customers, as well as taking legal advice regarding a pathway to trial to hold NZ Post accountable”.

“Over 500 members of the Tamahere-Cambridge community have made it clear that they support the Kennedys,” Gallagher said.

At the hearing, THG’s counsel, Paul dePledge, said his clients would not only be inconvenienced, but they would suffer “irreparable damage”, with THG losing its only source of income.

However, Justice Gault found there was no financial evidence from THG of irreparable harm.

“THG’s claim of irreparable harm to it or its directors is not supported by financial evidence.

“As Mr Depledge acknowledged, there is no evidence that THG cannot meet its obligations pending trial.”

However, the effects on NZ Post and its customers whose delivery needs were not met by THG in a single cycle would be “unduly prejudiced”.

He said an offer by THG to accommodate more deliveries had only arisen in evidence during the proceeding and since the notice to terminate.

NZ Post disputed the exclusivity claim, stating there was no clause in the contract that provided for it.

He accepted the submission by NZ Post’s co-counsel Brooke Marriner that he not delve into the merits of the exclusivity argument just yet and instead agreed it should be decided at trial.

Preserving the status quo could also be “problematic”, he said.

“Stepping back, I consider that overall justice does not favour interim relief.

“THG has an arguable case but the balance of convenience factors weigh against interim relief, especially in relation to the order sought restraining NZ Post from allocating mail and parcels to third-party contractors in the RD3 area.”

While accepting court proceedings were a last resort, Justice Gault also found THG took too long to file injunction proceedings.

Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for eight years and been a journalist for 19.