There is a lot more to this story than the rather one sided view expressed by the journalist who wrote the Stuff story.
This kind of context free and highly conclusory assertion is very irresponsible in the present context. An independent judicial officer has held:
1. The employer has a strongly arguable case; and
2. That the employer should receive an injunction which, at a minimum, prohibits the continuation of the conduct complained of. Injunctions are not lightly granted.
Really given what is available in the article and the inescapable fact that an independent judicial officer has found there to be substance to the allegations, it's utterly irresponsible and unfair for you and the other usual pile-on crowd to come up with the unsubstantiated hogwash that this is a journalist making things up or a plaintiff exaggerating. The nature of the allegations is particularly rich in view of how evidence-free the complaints are.
The Employment Relations Authority granted an injunction to the employer and required the (former) employee’s to conform to their employment contracts, regarding non-compete clauses. The ERA wouldn’t have done this unless there was a prima-facie case to answer. The case requires more extensive investigation.
Thank goodness one person in this thread can read and is talking sense.