Wilson Parking claims against rival branded ‘unreasonable’ and ‘conspiratorial’ as trial nears end

Friday, 10 July 2026

Lawyers for Peter Turner and Mainland Parking (left) had their last chance on Thursday to argue against Wilson Parking’s claims, backed by its boss Ryan Orchard (right).

A former Wilson Parking manager who set up a rival company is hoping to get his 12 month restraint of trade declared void in an effort to avoid a multimillion-dollar claim.

Peter Turner and his Christchurch-based company Mainland Parking had a final opportunity to make their case to Employment Court Judge Helen Doyle on Thursday, as a month-long trial into his alleged contract breaches nears its end.

Barrister Dean Russ, acting for Turner, said despite weeks of witnesses and the 70,000 documents discovered during proceedings, Wilson’s serious allegations “borders on conspiracy”, remained circumstantial, and were built on assumptions and inferences of Turner’s “nefarious” intentions.

Turner has been accused of several breaches, including sabotaging Wilson contracts and relationships before resigning in September 2023, and misusing confidential information to start his rival company in April 2024.

But Russ argued Wilson’s own witnesses gave evidence which supported Turner’s defence of the sabotage claims: that post-earthquake Christchurch was a unique market where early termination clauses were common and contracts frequently operated on a month-to-month basis.

Turner was supervised and a colleague submitted contracts to a database superiors could access, Russ said. Wilson chief executive Ryan Orchard was also supposed to be signing them off, Russ said, even if he chose not to out of convenience.

Wilson was also relying on the evidence of a senior executive and apparent co-conspirator, who Russ argued was compromised.

A senior Wilson executive told the court he helped Turner start his business, Mainland Parking.

The executive, who has name suppression, implicated himself in “the very conduct now attributed solely to [Turner]”, Russ said, by telling Judge Doyle how he and Turner allegedly poisoned landlord relationships and sabotaged contracts.

However, Russ said the executive’s evidence was given in the context of a co-operation agreement which protected him from legal action by Wilson. Wilson was also paying his legal fees and had signalled the possibility of giving him work in the future if he sufficiently helped.

Those factors were “highly relevant” to his ability to give evidence, Russ said.

Turner’s lawyer cited case law where Wilson helped an employee fight a restraint of trade. (File photo)

Even still, the senior executive told Judge Doyle he did not recall passing on confidential information to help Turner start his business, and one key and highly commercially sensitive document Turner was accused of taking was never discovered in a search order.

Glenn Jones, also speaking on behalf of both Turner and Mainland, argued Turner’s year-long restraint of trade had been unreasonable, and therefore “unenforceable and void” he said.

Turner was first given the lengthy restraint clause in 2013 when he first joined the company as an operations manager. Jones said the law required Judge Doyle to consider the reasonableness of a restraint clause at the time it was imposed – when Turner’s role was largely just keeping car parks tidy, his side has argued – as opposed to the end of Turner’s employment.

Wilson Parking is seeking a claim for damages or remedies against Peter Turner (pictured) and Mainland Parking that may be as much as $25 million.

Turner was only expected to give four weeks notice before resigning, which Jones said suggested the role was not as significant as Wilson argued.

Turner got legal advice soon after his resignation in 2023 which suggested a court would only uphold a six month restraint of trade. Jones also cited an Employment Relations Authority case in which Wilson successfully helped an employee fight a 12-month restraint of trade so they could switch from a rival to Wilson.

However, Turner never contested the clause before or during the restraint period itself. Judge Doyle said the key issue with that argument was the almost two years that had passed since the restraint expired.

It might be impossible for the court to modify the clause retrospectively, Russ said. But he and Jones argued Judge Doyle could still rule the restraint completely void.

Wilson Parking’s side will give its closing arguments on Monday.

The parking giant has foreshadowed a claim of as much as $25 million in damages and/or remedies, which could involve taking effective control over Mainland Parking, but are yet to give Judge Doyle a final figure.