MGK Bedryfsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk v De Bruyn (52996/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 5 (10 January 2008)

MGK Bedryfsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk v De Bruyn (52996/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 5 (10 January 2008)

The court found that the restraint clause in the employment contract was unenforceable against the respondent. The clause specified that restraint would apply only if the respondent had worked for the applicant for three years, which he had not. The applicant, as the author of the clause, could have drafted it differently if it intended immediate operation upon termination regardless of duration. The court further held that the applicant failed to establish a protectable proprietary interest, as the respondent's skills and relationships with farmers predated his employment and were not the result of confidential training or exposure to unique business methods. The respondent did not...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 5
Parties
Applicant: MGK Bedryfsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Frans Johannes De Bruyn
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 January 2008
Case Number
52996/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mavundla
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Contract, Protectable Interest, Confidential Information
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Employment Contract Protectable Interest Confidential Information

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MGK Bedryfsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Frans Johannes De Bruyn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is enforceable against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a protectable proprietary interest justifying the restraint.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent possesses confidential information or customer connections deserving protection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restraint clause in the employment contract was unenforceable against the respondent. The clause specified that restraint would apply only if the respondent had worked for the applicant for three years, which he had not. The applicant, as the author of the clause, could have drafted it differently if it intended immediate operation upon termination regardless of duration. The court further held that the applicant failed to establish a protectable proprietary interest, as the respondent's skills and relationships with farmers predated his employment and were not the result of confidential training or exposure to unique business methods. The respondent did not...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the postponements on 27 November 2007 and 11 December 2007, to be computed on the opposed party and party scale.