Fletcher and Another v Zeag SA (Pty) Limited (A5028/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 375 (24 June 2016)

Fletcher and Another v Zeag SA (Pty) Limited (A5028/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 375 (24 June 2016)

The court held that the appeal had become moot as the restraint period had expired and no practical effect or result could be achieved by any order of the court. The order interdicting the use of confidential information was found to be meaningless, as such conduct is already prohibited by common law and Mr Fletcher had tendered not to divulge confidential information. The court distinguished the present case from those where exceptional circumstances justified consideration of costs, finding none here. The appeal was dismissed in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, and the costs order was substituted so that each party pays its own costs for the application, but the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 375
Parties
Appellant: Trevor Fletcher; Appellant: Skidata South Africa (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Zeag SA (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Case Number
A5028/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Enforcing Restraint of Trade Agreement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as moot; costs order varied.
Judges
Meyer, Satchwell, Makume
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Interdict, Mootness, Costs on Appeal
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Interdict Mootness Costs on Appeal

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Fletcher

Appellant

Skidata South Africa (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Zeag SA (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Enforcing Restraint of Trade Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has any practical effect or result given the expiry of the restraint period.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order of the court a quo should be set aside or substituted.
  3. 3 Whether the order interdicting the use of confidential information remains operative or meaningful after expiry of the restraint period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appeal had become moot as the restraint period had expired and no practical effect or result could be achieved by any order of the court. The order interdicting the use of confidential information was found to be meaningless, as such conduct is already prohibited by common law and Mr Fletcher had tendered not to divulge confidential information. The court distinguished the present case from those where exceptional circumstances justified consideration of costs, finding none here. The appeal was dismissed in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, and the costs order was substituted so that each party pays its own costs for the application, but the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as moot; costs order varied.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Paragraph 3 of the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that each party is to pay its own costs of the application.