Labournet (Pty) Ltd v Jankielsohn and Another (J299/2016) [2016] ZALCJHB 135 (1 April 2016)

Labournet (Pty) Ltd v Jankielsohn and Another (J299/2016) [2016] ZALCJHB 135 (1 April 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a protectable interest in confidential information or customer connections sufficient to justify enforcement of the restraint. The evidence did not show that the respondent possessed unique or confidential information, nor that he had special relationships with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 135
Parties
Applicant: Labournet (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dyllan Jankielsohn; Respondent: SEESA Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2016
Case Number
J299/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Restraint of Trade Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Protectable Interest, Confidential Information, Customer Connections, Reasonableness of Restraint, Public Policy
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Protectable Interest Confidential Information Customer Connections Reasonableness of Restraint Public Policy

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Labournet (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dyllan Jankielsohn

Respondent

SEESA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Restraint of Trade Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is enforceable against the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a protectable interest justifying enforcement of the restraint.
  3. 3 Whether the period and geographic scope of the restraint are reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a protectable interest in confidential information or customer connections sufficient to justify enforcement of the restraint. The evidence did not show that the respondent possessed unique or confidential information, nor that he had special relationships with clients that could be exploited by a competitor. The restraint period of three years was found to be excessive and unreasonable. The respondent's employment with SEESA was not shown to infringe any legitimate interest of the applicant, and public policy considerations weighed against enforcement, as doing so would stifle competition and unreasonably restrict the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.