Hotel Reservations Worldwide (Pty) Ltd v Ristow and Another (ECJ 041/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 21 (26 May 2005)

Hotel Reservations Worldwide (Pty) Ltd v Ristow and Another (ECJ 041/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 21 (26 May 2005)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi to enforce the restraint of trade, as the restructuring of the group created uncertainty regarding succession. Clause 16 of the letter of appointment (SN1) did not constitute an operative restraint but merely anticipated a future agreement, which was never concluded. The unsigned pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2) was not proven to have been accepted by the respondent, and the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient and, at times, contrived. The requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of the abortive hearing and two counsel.

Citation
[2005] ZAECHC 21
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 2005
Case Number
ECJ 041/2005
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
D Chetty
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Contract, Final Interdict, Locus Standi
Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Employment Contract Final Interdict Locus Standi

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

Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to enforce the restraint of trade clause.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is bound by the restraint of trade clause in the letter of appointment (SN1).
  3. 3 Whether an unsigned pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2) is enforceable against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi to enforce the restraint of trade, as the restructuring of the group created uncertainty regarding succession. Clause 16 of the letter of appointment (SN1) did not constitute an operative restraint but merely anticipated a future agreement, which was never concluded. The unsigned pro-forma restraint agreement (SN2) was not proven to have been accepted by the respondent, and the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient and, at times, contrived. The requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of the abortive 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.