Dudley Wolhuter Insurance & Investment Brokers CC v KNott (2699/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 153 (29 February 2008)
The court found that the applicant was not entitled to the full relief sought, as the respondent no longer possessed the client list and the applicant conceded it could not demand its return. The respondent and her attorney provided undertakings in court not to use the information unfairly and to restrict use of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZAWCHC 153
- Parties
- Applicant: Dudley Wolhuter Insurance & Investment Brokers CC; Respondent: Lynette Knott
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2699/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Traverso
- Legal Topics
- Confidential Information, Interdict, Client List Protection, Undertaking in Court
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dudley Wolhuter Insurance & Investment Brokers CC
Applicant
Lynette Knott
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be restrained from using or disclosing the applicant's confidential client information.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the return or protection of its client list.
- 3 Whether an undertaking by the respondent and her attorney suffices to protect the applicant's interests.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not entitled to the full relief sought, as the respondent no longer possessed the client list and the applicant conceded it could not demand its return. The respondent and her attorney provided undertakings in court not to use the information unfairly and to restrict use of the list to disciplinary proceedings. The court accepted these undertakings as sufficient, given the standing of the legal practitioners involved, and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)CASE NO: 2699/2008
DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 2008
In the matter between:
DUDLEY WOLHUTER INSURANCE & Applicant
INVESTMENT BROKER CC
and
LYNETTE KNOTT Respondent
TRAVERSO. DJP:
[1] This was an application in terms whereof the applicant applied for inter alia the following relief on an urgent basis:
"1. That the respondent be restrained and interdicted from in any way using or disclosing to any person any of the applicant's confidential information and more particularly the identity of any of the applicant's clients whose names appear on the applicant's client list, or its clients' database, or the identity of the contact person employed by those clients.
Disclosing the details of the insurance policies held by any of the applicant's clients whose names appear on the applicants client list or database to any person.
Disclosing the details of the applicant's client list or database or the contents thereof to any other person".
[2] It is common cause between the parties that the respondent was employed by the applicant in the insurance industry. It is common
cause that she was retrenched and it is common cause that at one stage while she was on vacation she emailed the client list to her computer at home, according to her affidavits she did this because she had to service those clients while on holiday as the applicant did not have the infrastructure to do so. It is common cause that the client Jist was handed in as an Exhibit at the disciplinary hearing and clearly the applicant is not entitled to the return of that list.
[3] The respondent states on several occasions that she no longer has the list, on her computer nor does she have a hard copy thereof. She says she knows the list off by heart because these are old clients that followed her from the place where she was previously employed in the same industry. Mr de Haan who appeared for the Appficant very fairly conceded that his client was not entitled to the relief claimed in the notice of motion that at best the applicant was entitled to some kind of undertaking from the Respondent that she will not use any of the information that she obtained from the data list unfairly, that she will delete such data from her computer and return any hard copies that she may have.
[4] He also sought an undertaking that as regards the list which is in the possession of the Respondent's attorney, Mr Kulenkampff, he will only use the list for purposes of further steps that will be taken pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry.
[5] Mr Kulenkampff, in his personal capacity and on behalf of his client, tendered such an undertaking in court. I note that such an undertaking has been made and I am not going to include it in any order. I have two respected legal practioners before me and I accept unreservedly that their word is their bond.
[6] From this it follows that the applicant is not successful in the application and in the circumstances, subject to the
undertakings to which I have referred, the application is dismissed, with costs.
TRAVERSO, D J P