A.M.V and Another v J.M.V and Others (73245/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1025 (17 November 2014)

A.M.V and Another v J.M.V and Others (73245/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1025 (17 November 2014)

The court found that the first respondent, through the vehicle of the second respondent, unlawfully competed with the second applicant with the dominant purpose of inflicting harm, motivated by malice. This conduct was condemned as contra bonos mores and warranted an interdict. The third respondent was bound by her undertaking not to contact the second applicant's clients, and her subsequent contact constituted a breach. However, the restraint of trade clause was found to be unreasonable and unenforceable due to its unlimited duration, worldwide scope, and all-encompassing nature. No case of unlawful competition was made out against the fourth respondent, and the application against him...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1025
Parties
Applicant: A M V; Applicant: S[...] CC; Respondent: J M V; Respondent: H[...] T[...] (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: A M E W; Respondent: A W
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2014
Case Number
73245/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict
Outcome
Interdict granted against the first, second, and third respondents; application against the fourth respondent dismissed.
Judges
JW Louw
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Interdict, Employee Poaching
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Unlawful Competition Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Interdict Employee Poaching

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M V

Applicant

S[...] CC

Applicant

J M V

Respondent

H[...] T[...] (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

A M E W

Respondent

A W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents unlawfully competed with the second applicant by targeting its clients and employees.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent breached her undertaking not to contact or compete with the second applicant's clients.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint of trade clause signed by the third respondent is enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent, through the vehicle of the second respondent, unlawfully competed with the second applicant with the dominant purpose of inflicting harm, motivated by malice. This conduct was condemned as contra bonos mores and warranted an interdict. The third respondent was bound by her undertaking not to contact the second applicant's clients, and her subsequent contact constituted a breach. However, the restraint of trade clause was found to be unreasonable and unenforceable due to its unlimited duration, worldwide scope, and all-encompassing nature. No case of unlawful competition was made out against the fourth respondent, and the application against him...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted against the first, second, and third respondents; application against the fourth respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • The first, second, and third respondents are prohibited from contacting any of the second applicant's existing clients to persuade them to transfer service agreements to the second respondent.
  • The first and second respondents are prohibited from approaching existing employees of the second applicant to persuade them to resign and take up employment with the second respondent.