20 March 2026

Restraint of Trade: Premavida Ltd v. Walker

  

Acknowledging in the High Court that he was not complying with a restraint of trade agreed on a $950,000 sale of his half share in Hamilton optometrist Rose Optometry, Peter Walker upped the ante by challenging Rose Optometry to sue for damages.

Justice Powell agreed Rose Optometry’s best remedy is damages for any proved financial loss, declining an interim injunction requested by Rose to stop Mr Walker working for a competitor.

The court was told Mr Walker sold his stake in Rose Optometry in 2024.

As is common, terms of sale contained a restraint of trade clause.

Mr Walker promised not to immediately set up a new business within an eight kilometre radius of Rose Optometry’s Lake Road premises in Frankton, poach clients, or work for a competitor.  Four other local firms in Hamilton were named as off-limits.

He later admitted to working one day a week for a named competitor: Total Vision.

Rose Optometry asked for a High Court injunction to stop Mr Walker’s current employment with Total Vision; prohibited before October 2026 by the agreed restraint.

Mr Walker filed in court a written undertaking promising not to poach clients from Rose Optometry prior to October 2026 while declaring he would continue working for Rose’s competitor one day a week.

There was evidence that about 160 clients had transferred from Rose Optometry to Total Vision since Mr Walker started, of which nearly fifty per cent had been seen by Mr Walker.

He told the High Court he had destroyed, or returned to Rose Optometry, all confidential information relevant to these clients.

Given Mr Walker’s promise to the court that he would not further access information regarding Rose Optometry clients until after October 2026, Justice Powell ruled there was no need for the court to intervene.

If Rose Optometry has suffered any financial loss following Mr Walker’s employment by a competitor during the restraint period, it can sue him for damages.

Justice Powell indicated any financial damage was likely to be minimal.

Premavida Ltd v. Walker – High Court (20.03.26)

26.112