Blinkwater Mills (Pty) Limited v Van Der Westuizen (43002/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 527 (14 June 2016)

Blinkwater Mills (Pty) Limited v Van Der Westuizen (43002/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 527 (14 June 2016)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to the interim relief sought, as the respondent's conduct in soliciting or accepting payments from specified clients could cause irreparable harm to the applicant's business interests. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, and the respondent was interdicted from further solicitation or acceptance of payments from the listed clients pending the final determination of the application. The matter was postponed to a specified date to allow the respondent to show cause why the interdict should not be made final and why costs should not be awarded against him.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 527
Parties
Applicant: Blinkwater Mills (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sybrand Cornelius Van Der Westhuizen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2016
Case Number
43002/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Return Date
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; matter postponed for respondent to show cause.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Restraint of Trade
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Restraint of Trade

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blinkwater Mills (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Sybrand Cornelius Van Der Westhuizen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be interdicted from soliciting or accepting payments from specified clients pending final determination of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to the interim relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be called upon to show cause why the interdict should not be made final and costs awarded against him.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to the interim relief sought, as the respondent's conduct in soliciting or accepting payments from specified clients could cause irreparable harm to the applicant's business interests. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, and the respondent was interdicted from further solicitation or acceptance of payments from the listed clients pending the final determination of the application. The matter was postponed to a specified date to allow the respondent to show cause why the interdict should not be made final and why costs should not be awarded against him.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; matter postponed for respondent to show cause.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted from soliciting or accepting payments from any persons or businesses listed in annexure A to the founding affidavit in relation to advertising stock supplied by or on behalf of the applicant up to 1 May 2016.
  • The application is postponed to 19 July 2016 in the unopposed motion court, on which date the respondent is called upon to show cause why the interdict should not be made final and why costs should not be awarded against him.