Bernd Triebiger (Pty) Ltd t/a BT Enterprises v Markay and Another (28033/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 130 (18 August 2011)

Bernd Triebiger (Pty) Ltd t/a BT Enterprises v Markay and Another (28033/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 130 (18 August 2011)

The court held that while contracts should generally be enforced, a restraint of trade must be balanced against the right of an individual to earn a living. The applicant is entitled to relief preventing the first respondent from disclosing confidential information, as this is a restatement of the law. However, the immediate enforcement of the restraint of trade was postponed sine die, allowing the applicant to approach the court again if there is clear evidence of breach. The issue of costs was postponed for 12 months to allow for further consideration based on future compliance.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 130
Parties
Applicant: Bernd Triebiger (Pty) Ltd t/a BT Enterprises; Respondent: Elizabeth Catharine Markay; Respondent: Marille Systems (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2011
Case Number
28033/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Enforce Restraint of Trade Agreement
Outcome
Relief preventing disclosure of confidential information granted; enforcement of restraint of trade postponed sine die; costs postponed for 12 months.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Employment Competition
Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Employment Competition

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernd Triebiger (Pty) Ltd t/a BT Enterprises

Applicant

Elizabeth Catharine Markay

Respondent

Marille Systems (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Enforce Restraint of Trade Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade agreement between the applicant and the first respondent should be enforced.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent should be prohibited from working for the second respondent for 12 months.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent may disclose confidential information obtained during employment with the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while contracts should generally be enforced, a restraint of trade must be balanced against the right of an individual to earn a living. The applicant is entitled to relief preventing the first respondent from disclosing confidential information, as this is a restatement of the law. However, the immediate enforcement of the restraint of trade was postponed sine die, allowing the applicant to approach the court again if there is clear evidence of breach. The issue of costs was postponed for 12 months to allow for further consideration based on future compliance.

Court Disposition

Relief preventing disclosure of confidential information granted; enforcement of restraint of trade postponed sine die; costs postponed for 12 months.

Orders

  • Relief sought in prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 24 July 2011 is postponed sine die.
  • The applicant is given leave to approach the court again to reconsider the relief sought in prayer 2 upon filing a supplementary affidavit.