While Kevin Waterman denies bad-mouthing purchasers of his Kerikeri dairy shed maintenance business beyond jokingly calling them ‘dumb Aucklanders’ and equally denies going behind their backs in breach of a restraint of trade on sale of his business by offering to continue working for former customers with under the table payments in cash, Justice MacGillivray issued a strongly-worded High Court injunction reinforcing the restraint of trade pending any further court hearing.
The court was told Lauren Moribito paid $585,000 in 2025 to purchase assets of Mr Waterman’s business: Northern Dairy Specialists Ltd.
Northern Dairy installed and maintained dairy sheds.
Sale price included $362,000 paid for goodwill; payment for anticipated future revenue expected for ongoing work coming from Mr Waterman’s existing Northern Dairy customers.
As is the norm, the sale agreement contains a restraint of trade clause. Mr Waterman promised for the next five years not to compete against Ms Moribito’s business in areas of North Auckland, north of Kawakawa.
Ms Moribito alleged in the High Court that Mr Waterman instead set out to undermine her new business from the outset.
A Northern Dairy staffmember, now working for Ms Moribito, reported hearing Mr Waterman tell his former customers that Ms Moribito and her spouse were dumb Aucklanders, useless, incompetent and destined to fail.
Various witnesses said they had seen Mr Waterman giving former customers his personal mobile number, telling them that he was available for work with payments to be in cash and the Moribitos not told.
Mr Waterman denied all these allegations.
Comments about the Moribitos’ abilities were made as a joke, he said.
He passed on his personal mobile number just to keep in touch with customers he considered personal friends, he said.
He denied doing any under the table jobs for cash since selling in 2025.
Justice MacGillivray ruled there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing an injunction, reinforcing terms of the restraint of trade, pending a full court hearing into whether Mr Waterman had in fact breached the restraint of trade he signed.
Mirabito v. Waterman – High Court (4.08.26)
26.217