Sweeping relief that delivers the whole outcome unsuited to an urgent, unopposed application
The High Court of New Zealand refused a cannabis maker's urgent bid to force a rival to retract claims it had stopped production.
The court declined the application in Helius Therapeutics Ltd v MW Pharma Ltd [2026] NZHC 2086, finding the orders sought unsuitable for a decision without hearing the other side.
The applicant, Helius Therapeutics Ltd, manufactured medicinal cannabis products. The court noted that an earlier company of the same name, later renamed Ex-HTL Ltd, entered voluntary administration in March 2026 and stopped manufacturing. Ora Pharm Ltd acquired that business, effective 19 June 2026, and a renamed Ora subsidiary – the present applicant – began manufacturing 12 of the 14 products.
Around 9 July 2026, the respondent, trading as NUBU Pharmaceuticals, circulated a newsletter with a product conversion guide. The court recorded that the guide said the applicant had entered administration, that "Helius Therapeutics has ceased production," and that "all products are now discontinued," and urged prescribers to switch patients to alternatives.
The applicant said the statements were false because it had begun producing again, and alleged that they breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 (the Act). It demanded a retraction. The respondent maintained the statements were correct, arguing that they referred to the original company, which changed its name on 22 June 2026, and not to the new owner.
The applicant sought an interim injunction under s. 41 of the Act barring the respondent from selling any product the newsletter named as an alternative until every recipient received a retraction. Its counsel argued there was a serious question to be tried, that the applicant's harm outweighed the respondent's, and that its sales had fallen below 36 percent of the pre-publication daily average.
The court accepted that it might be arguable that some contents were inaccurate and that a breach was arguable. It said the applicant's position was complicated because two different entities were called Helius Therapeutics Ltd, one of which had permanently ceased production.
The court did not resolve that question. It held that the relief was designed to be "maximally coercive," giving the applicant its substantive outcome without deciding its claims. The court said it had no information about the respondent's business and could not assess the orders' effect on the respondent, its staff, suppliers, or those using its products.
The court could not, therefore, weigh the competing interests or the overall justice of the case. It directed the applicant to serve the proceedings and pursue the orders on notice, recalling the matter for 27 July 2026. There was no issue as to costs.
