A
restraining order against Philip Wallis following bad blood between two rival
surf schools at Piha Beach was overturned by the High Court. Despite proved harassment, conditions
attaching to the court order allowing the two surf schools to continue operating
side by side indicated a restraining order was not required.
The Harassment Act is
designed to impose controls over toxic personal relationships. Felipe Rebolledo and Chelsea Withers used the
Act to deal with a business dispute.
The High Court was told
Mr Wallis took exception to a rival surf school set up by Mr Rebolledo and Ms
Withers under the name ‘Piha Surf Academy’ at Auckland’s west coast Piha
beach. He claimed they were attempting
to build their business on the goodwill attaching to his existing surf school,
now operated primarily by his son under the name ‘Piha Surf School’. Piha has a small permanent population. Mr Wallis made his dislike very public. There was evidence of harsh words between Mr
Wallis and his business rivals. He
initiated Facebook traffic accusing them of being aggressive and
deceitful. The court was told of Mr
Wallis destroying one of his rivals’ surfboards by driving over it and of
allegedly driving at the two when they were walking through a carpark.
Finding harassment
proved, the District Court imposed a two year restraining order subject to
conditions: both businesses were permitted to work the same stretch of beach
when giving surf lessons. Customer
safety and notorious tidal rips at Piha Beach meant there were limited venues
for any surf business at the beach.
In the High Court,
Justice Heath said the Act allows imposition of restraining orders if
‘necessary’ to give legal protection to victims of harassment. Given the two rivals were being permitted to
still work side by side, a restraining order did not appear ‘necessary’, he
ruled. Mr Wallis was warned that a
repeat of past behaviour might result in a court order removing his business
from Piha.
Wallis
v. Rebolledo & Withers – High Court (20.10.17)
17.141