Mainland Parking founder denies trying to lure Wilson employee to rival company

Monday, 29 June 2026

An ex-Wilson Parking manager has admitted offering shares in his fledgling new parking business to a senior employee at his former company while the man still worked there – but denied he was trying to lure him away.

The exchange came on the third day of Peter Turner’s cross-examination before Judge Helen Doyle in the Employment Court in Christchurch on Monday.

The proceedings started three weeks ago when Wilson Parking alleged its former Southern regional manager stole confidential company information before resigning in September 2023 to establish rival parking businesses Mainland Parking and TPM Holdings.

Turner is accused of several contract breaches, including allegedly sabotaging client contracts and misusing confidential information to start rival company Mainland Parking, allegations he denies.

Rachel Reed KC, acting for Wilson Parking, questioned Turner about an option agreement that would have given a Wilson employee shares in his proposed parking business.

“I wasn't trying to … no,” he replied.

However, Turner accepted he had offered the employee an option to acquire shares in his company while they still worked for Wilson.

Reed also asked about allegations Turner had used confidential Wilson documents to build his competing business.

The court heard Turner instructed a graphic designer to alter resource consent plans after a Mainland planning consultant warned they appeared “too similar” to Wilson’s.

“You’ve just tried to make them look like something that’s not Wilson’s?' Reed asked, to which Turner said: ”Yeah, I guess we did.“

Earlier, Reed had already challenged Turner’s evidence that he had merely “cleansed” his Wilson laptop before returning it.

She pointed to expert evidence that browser history had been cleared, Hotmail had been accessed and Chrome’s incognito mode used during Turner’s final weekend with the company.

Turner denied knowing anything about incognito browsing.

The court also heard about emails which showed Turner began working with one of Wilson’s clients the day after his employment ended.

Days later, he was having conversations and sending resource consent documents to a former Wilson client, which Turner claimed had been supplied by others rather than copied from Wilson.

The cross-examination also canvassed the funding of Turner’s legal defence.

Reed questioned Turner about an agreement under which TPM Holdings agreed to pay his legal costs, despite retaining “no control over the proceedings” and receiving no apparent benefit.

Although Turner insisted TPM was not his, nor was it under his control, he accepted the company had entered into an agreement to pay for his legal fees.

“TPM doesn’t get any benefit out of doing so, does it?” she asked.

“Not at this point, no,” Turner replied.

The court also heard TPM lacked sufficient revenue to meet the legal costs and that Mainland later agreed to advance funds to the company to enable the arrangement to proceed.

Reed suggested the arrangement amounted to “a money-go-round” designed to fund Turner’s legal defence.

Pressed on what benefit TPM would receive from paying his legal fees, Turner replied that he and the company’s director wanted 'to do business together going forward.'

The case continues.