Metro Limited and Another v Fenwick and Others (4927/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 107 (17 June 2016)

Metro Limited and Another v Fenwick and Others (4927/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 107 (17 June 2016)

The court found that the applicants had established proprietary interests worthy of protection, including trade secrets, customer and supplier connections, and confidential information. The respondents failed to provide substantive answers or countervailing evidence to the allegations, relying instead on bald denials and technical objections that were abandoned. The restraint of trade clauses were found to be valid and reasonable in duration and scope, and the respondents' conduct in setting up a competing business and approaching applicants' customers and suppliers constituted breaches of their contractual obligations. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule, holding that the...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 107
Parties
Applicant: Metpro Limited; Applicant: Metpro Technology Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sean Fenwick; Respondent: John Fenwick; Respondent: RapidSRC (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Case Number
4927/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; restraint of trade orders enforced against first and second respondents; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Mhlambi, AJ
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Unlawful Competition, Employment Contracts, Proprietary Interest
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Unlawful Competition Employment Contracts Proprietary Interest

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

Parties

Metpro Limited

Applicant

Metpro Technology Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sean Fenwick

Respondent

John Fenwick

Respondent

RapidSRC (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a protectable proprietary interest.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are subject to the restraints of trade.
  3. 3 Whether the restraints are unreasonable or contrary to public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established proprietary interests worthy of protection, including trade secrets, customer and supplier connections, and confidential information. The respondents failed to provide substantive answers or countervailing evidence to the allegations, relying instead on bald denials and technical objections that were abandoned. The restraint of trade clauses were found to be valid and reasonable in duration and scope, and the respondents' conduct in setting up a competing business and approaching applicants' customers and suppliers constituted breaches of their contractual obligations. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule, holding that the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; restraint of trade orders enforced against first and second respondents; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Interdicting and restraining the first respondent, for a period of 12 months after termination of his services with the second applicant, being until 31 July 2016, from approaching any existing employee, client or future client of the second applicant for the purpose of providing, rendering or soliciting services or...
  • Restraining the first respondent from engaging, being concerned or interested in, or holding any material interest in any business wholly or partly in competition with the relevant business, as defined in the employment contract.