Hotel Reservation Worldwide (Pty) Ltd v Ristow and Another (EL 201/2005, ECD 681/2005) [2008] ZAECHC 67 (26 May 2008)

Hotel Reservation Worldwide (Pty) Ltd v Ristow and Another (EL 201/2005, ECD 681/2005) [2008] ZAECHC 67 (26 May 2008)

The court found that clause 16 of the letter of appointment (SN1) did not constitute an operative restraint of trade but merely anticipated the conclusion of a future agreement. There was no evidence that the respondent ever signed or was made aware of the pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2). The applicant failed to establish locus standi or prove the existence of a binding restraint agreement. The requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of the aborted hearing and two counsel.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 67
Parties
Applicant: Hotel Reservations Worldwide (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Natalie Corinne Ristow; Respondent: Kat Leisure (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2008
Case Number
EL 201/2005, ECD 681/2005
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Final Interdict, Employment Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Final Interdict Employment Contracts

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hotel Reservations Worldwide (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Natalie Corinne Ristow

Respondent

Kat Leisure (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to enforce a restraint of trade against the respondent based on the letter of appointment and pro-forma agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to enforce the restraint of trade.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was ever made aware of or signed the pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that clause 16 of the letter of appointment (SN1) did not constitute an operative restraint of trade but merely anticipated the conclusion of a future agreement. There was no evidence that the respondent ever signed or was made aware of the pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2). The applicant failed to establish locus standi or prove the existence of a binding restraint agreement. The requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of the aborted hearing and two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the abortive hearing on 3 May 2005, and all such costs are to include the costs of two counsel.