Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd and Others v Your Move Personnel, Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd and Others v Your Move Personnel (13218/2009, 14160/2009) [2012] ZAWCHC 272 (6 June 2012)

Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd and Others v Your Move Personnel, Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd and Others v Your Move Personnel (13218/2009, 14160/2009) [2012] ZAWCHC 272 (6 June 2012)

The court found that the respondents failed to raise any new or substantive grounds in their application for leave to appeal. The only new ground, relating to the alleged vagueness of the restraint's geographical scope, was not properly raised in the papers or heads of argument and was introduced for the first time during oral argument. The applicants were not afforded an opportunity to address this issue, and the respondents' counsel did not pursue it convincingly. The court held that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no substance in the arguments advanced by the respondents. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 272
Parties
Applicant: Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Daniel Terblanche N.O. (joint liquidator of CR Solutions Cape Town (Pty) Ltd); Applicant: E A Beddy N.O. (joint liquidator of CR Solutions Cape Town (Pty) Ltd); Applicant: Cindy Shamley; Applicant: Neil Dormehl; Respondent: Your Move Personnel; Respondent: Wade Neville Janion; Respondent: Holly Janion; Respondent: Mistral Ann Janion; Respondent: Web-Active (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Premier Attraction 426 CC t/a Web-Active; Respondent: Leandrie Le Roux
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2012
Case Number
13218/2009, 14160/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Court a Quo
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
J I Cloete
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Restraint of Trade, Prospects of Success, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Restraint of Trade Prospects of Success Costs Award

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

Credit Temps (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Daniel Terblanche N.O. (joint liquidator of CR Solutions Cape Town (Pty) Ltd)

Applicant

E A Beddy N.O. (joint liquidator of CR Solutions Cape Town (Pty) Ltd)

Applicant

Cindy Shamley

Applicant

Neil Dormehl

Applicant

Your Move Personnel

Respondent

Wade Neville Janion

Respondent

Holly Janion

Respondent

Mistral Ann Janion

Respondent

Web-Active (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Premier Attraction 426 CC t/a Web-Active

Respondent

Leandrie Le Roux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the restraint against the fourth respondent is unenforceable due to vagueness regarding its geographical scope.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to raise any new or substantive grounds in their application for leave to appeal. The only new ground, relating to the alleged vagueness of the restraint's geographical scope, was not properly raised in the papers or heads of argument and was introduced for the first time during oral argument. The applicants were not afforded an opportunity to address this issue, and the respondents' counsel did not pursue it convincingly. The court held that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no substance in the arguments advanced by the respondents. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.