Ceramix Anilox Engravers v Jerome and Another (13963/2006) [2007] ZAKZHC 52 (3 May 2007)

Ceramix Anilox Engravers v Jerome and Another (13963/2006) [2007] ZAKZHC 52 (3 May 2007)

The court found that the respondents, by approaching clients listed in the annexures to the order, acted in flagrant disregard of the clear and unambiguous terms of the consent order. The order prohibited any contact with the applicant's clients for the specified purposes, regardless of whether actual refurbishment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZAKZHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Ceramix Anilox Engravers; Respondent: Russell Jerome; Respondent: Allied Graphic Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2007
Case Number
13963/2006
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; respondents found in contempt of court order.
Judges
Balton
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Interdict, Confidential Information, Consent Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Breach of Interdict Confidential Information Consent Order

Source-derived case record

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

Ceramix Anilox Engravers

Applicant

Russell Jerome

Respondent

Allied Graphic Technologies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents disobeyed or neglected to comply with the court order granted on 1 November 2006.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents used the applicant's confidential client lists and technical information to solicit business from the applicant's clients.
  3. 3 Whether the consent order should be interpreted differently from an order granted after hearing the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, by approaching clients listed in the annexures to the order, acted in flagrant disregard of the clear and unambiguous terms of the consent order. The order prohibited any contact with the applicant's clients for the specified purposes, regardless of whether actual refurbishment or supply was carried out. The respondents' argument that the processes used were different was deemed irrelevant. The court held that a consent order has the same legal effect as an order granted after considering the merits, and breach of such an order constitutes contempt. The respondents were found to be in contempt of the court order.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; respondents found in contempt of court order.

Orders

  • The respondents are declared to be in contempt of the order of court granted on 1 November 2006 under Case No. 7631/2006.
  • The first respondent is committed to prison for three months, wholly suspended for three years on condition of compliance with the order and no further contempt during the suspension period.