Brisan Distrubutors CC v Du Plesis and Another (15678/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1061 (8 August 2017)

Brisan Distrubutors CC v Du Plesis and Another (15678/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1061 (8 August 2017)

The court found that the first respondent breached the restraint of trade clause in her employment contract by directly and indirectly canvassing and enticing clients of the applicant, and by engaging in business activities similar to those of the applicant within close proximity and shortly after termination of employment. The evidence established that the first respondent had access to and used client lists and confidential information for personal benefit, and that her conduct resulted in significant client cancellations. The court held that the applicant had a legitimate protectable interest in its client connections and confidential information. While the restraint of trade was...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1061
Parties
Applicant: Brisan Distributors CC; Respondent: Joani Du Plessis; Respondent: Journey Nails
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2017
Case Number
15678/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; interdict issued against first respondent with modified scope and duration.
Judges
Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Unlawful Competition, Employment Contract, Client List Protection
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Unlawful Competition Employment Contract Client List Protection

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brisan Distributors CC

Applicant

Joani Du Plessis

Respondent

Journey Nails

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent breached the restraint of trade clause in her employment contract with the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent unlawfully used confidential information and client lists belonging to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint of trade imposed by the contract is reasonable in terms of duration and geographic scope.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent breached the restraint of trade clause in her employment contract by directly and indirectly canvassing and enticing clients of the applicant, and by engaging in business activities similar to those of the applicant within close proximity and shortly after termination of employment. The evidence established that the first respondent had access to and used client lists and confidential information for personal benefit, and that her conduct resulted in significant client cancellations. The court held that the applicant had a legitimate protectable interest in its client connections and confidential information. While the restraint of trade was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; interdict issued against first respondent with modified scope and duration.

Orders

  • The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from directly or indirectly canvassing or enticing business from any person who was a client of the applicant during her term of employment.
  • The period of restraint shall be for eighteen (18) months calculated from 31 January 2017.