{"id":572323,"date":"2026-08-18T03:20:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T03:20:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/572323\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T03:20:09","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T03:20:09","slug":"jarden-barrenjoey-poaching-claims-in-court-raid-left-no-business-division-untouched","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/572323\/","title":{"rendered":"Jarden-Barrenjoey poaching claims in court: \u2018Raid left no business division untouched\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
Dickey said 14 Jarden staff left and another 17 were targeted. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe raid left no business division untouched.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dickey said targets included business group leaders, entry-level staff and even \u201calgorithm specialists who work from home in Christchurch\u201d.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cIt beggars belief that it could have been mapped on a whiteboard by Barrenjoey without inside information.\u201d<\/p>\n
And he said it was unbelievable to suggest the \u201coffer of employment fell out of the sky on the 26th of July\u201d.<\/p>\n
Dickey said Reynolds and Schenone resigned at the very same minute.<\/p>\n
The court heard both respondents were on gardening leave and Reynolds had a six-month notice period.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe window for Jarden to understand that which occurred … closes day by day,\u201d Dickey said.<\/p>\n
Dickey said Reynolds and Schenone had simply been asked to give their work phones back.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe don\u2019t want to be looking at holiday snapshots of people on the beach, for example.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court heard that the respondents had agreed to return phones but with personal information erased.<\/p>\n
Dickey said Reynolds and Schenone arranged for clones of work phones to be made.<\/p>\n
But he said it was unacceptable the phones were cloned without Jarden\u2019s independent forensic expert present.<\/p>\n
Dickey said the respondents then performed \u201cfactory resets destroying all data on the devices\u201d before returning those original work phones.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is staggering to learn that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dickey said Jarden was unable to trust the respondents to behave professionally and appropriately.<\/p>\n
The court heard the cloned devices would be better than nothing for Jarden to get, but were still inferior to the pre-reset devices.<\/p>\n
Dickey said there might be irretrievable WhatsApp messages of relevance to the case.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe clone needs to come to Jarden now.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018Fishing expedition\u2019<\/p>\n
For Reynolds and Schenone, Philip Skelton KC said the court had no jurisdiction to force the clones to be handed over.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not about the phones any more … They\u2019ve got their property back. We\u2019re now concerned about the clones.\u201d<\/p>\n
Skelton said the clones were on hard drives which were not Jarden property.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe clones contain the respondents\u2019 personal and private information, [and] may contain privileged information.\u201d<\/p>\n
And Jarden had no right to see such material, Skelton said.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cIt just can\u2019t be right that your medical records between you and your doctor are somehow owned\u201d by a company simply because that company declared so in its policy.<\/p>\n
\u201cData isn\u2019t something that you can own as such.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said the respondents\u2019 solicitors held the clones. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a fishing expedition. Jarden is trying to circumvent the ordinary rules that apply to litigation,\u201d Skelton added.<\/p>\n
He said Jarden was upset about Barrenjoey entering its market and was speculating without any evidence the respondents had breached employment agreements.<\/p>\n
Skelton said if there had been discussions about a shoulder-tapping from Barrenjoey, that would not be unusual or sinister.<\/p>\n
\u201cEmployees are perfectly entitled to enter into those arrangements. It\u2019s their personal business.\u201d<\/p>\n
And he said Barrenjoey was entitled to set up business and hire Jarden staff.<\/p>\n
Skelton said the dispute involved \u201ctwo very large investment firms fighting over the patch\u201d in New Zealand. <\/p>\n
And he said Reynolds and Schenone gave Jarden plenty of notice.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey were honest and upfront. They didn\u2019t mislead Jarden.\u201d<\/p>\n
Skelton said an upset Jarden\u2019s approach now was: \u201cSue people who are leaving, send a message to others.\u201d<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s hearing was an application for \u201cdeliver up\u201d orders. <\/p>\n
Such an order compels a person to return specific goods, documents, or infringing copyright items in their possession. <\/p>\n
Judge Kathryn Beck reserved her decision, meaning she will issue it at a later date.<\/p>\n
Last month, Barrenjoey said it had hired two founders who would lead the business across Financial Markets and Corporate Finance in New Zealand. <\/p>\n
Barrenjoey previously said it was actively recruiting in New Zealand for key business and support roles. <\/p>\n
\u201cBarrenjoey New Zealand will be a locally led and managed business, creating a platform that will attract and reward the very best people so they can produce outstanding outcomes for clients,\u201d Barrenjoey CEO Brian Benari said at the time.<\/p>\n