Follow the podcast on

John MacDonald: Meat shop court ruling hard to swallow

Author: John MacDonald,
Publish Date: Tue, 26 May 2026, 12:33pm

Even though I understand why a new independent supermarket in Christchurch has been told by the High Court that it can’t sell meat for two years, I still think it’s strange.

The Harvest Market is in the same spot where a Mad Butcher franchise used to be until earlier this year.

The people who ran the franchise also ran a grocery business alongside it. Which the Mad Butcher was happy with - as long as they didn’t sell meat.

But the Mad Butcher shop isn’t there anymore because the franchise owners had a falling out with head office. And the Mad Butcher accused them of helping the Harvest Market guy set up the meat side of his business, because their nose was out of joint. That’s why it all ended up in court.

And the court has ruled that this two-year non-compete clause that prevented the grocery operation on the same site from selling meat still stands, even though the Mad Butcher shop is no longer there.

In the eyes of the law, it makes sense. But how can you be accused of unfairly competing with a shop that is no longer there?

And it does seem nuts that, at a time when we’re being told that we need more competition in our grocery sector, we have this ruling that stops the Harvest Market from competing with a non-existent competitor.

There is the chance that the Mad Butcher chain wants to set up shop in that part of Christchurch again. Because it was, after all, one of its most successful franchises.

But why shut down competition for the sake of shutting down competition? Or more correctly, why shut down competition that doesn’t actually exist?

LISTEN ABOVE