DCL Food Distributors CC v Coetzee and Others (J1066/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 142 (3 May 2017)

DCL Food Distributors CC v Coetzee and Others (J1066/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 142 (3 May 2017)

The court found that the third respondent was not a party to the settlement agreements made an order of court and no specific relief was sought against it in the original proceedings. The settlement agreements did not require the individual respondents to leave the third respondent's employment, nor did they bind the third respondent to refrain from conducting business with the applicant's former customers. As such, the third respondent was not bound by any order requiring it to desist from such conduct and could not be held in contempt. The applicant failed to establish a breach of a court order by the third respondent. Regarding costs, although the third respondent was not in legal...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 142
Parties
Applicant: DCL Food Distributors CC; Respondent: Jean Hendrick Coetzee; Respondent: Raymond Friedman; Respondent: General Supply CC; Respondent: Rita Da Silva
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2017
Case Number
J1066/16
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for contempt against the third respondent dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement 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

DCL Food Distributors CC

Applicant

Jean Hendrick Coetzee

Respondent

Raymond Friedman

Respondent

General Supply CC

Respondent

Rita Da Silva

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent is in contempt of the court order made on 10 June 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was bound by the settlement agreements made an order of court.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third respondent was not a party to the settlement agreements made an order of court and no specific relief was sought against it in the original proceedings. The settlement agreements did not require the individual respondents to leave the third respondent's employment, nor did they bind the third respondent to refrain from conducting business with the applicant's former customers. As such, the third respondent was not bound by any order requiring it to desist from such conduct and could not be held in contempt. The applicant failed to establish a breach of a court order by the third respondent. Regarding costs, although the third respondent was not in legal...

Court Disposition

Application for contempt against the third respondent dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The third respondent is found not guilty of contempt of this court's order in this matter on 10 June 2016.
  • Each party must pay its own costs.