MMPA Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v Buret (592/14, ECD 1192/14) [2015] ZAECELLC 3 (6 January 2015)

MMPA Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v Buret (592/14, ECD 1192/14) [2015] ZAECELLC 3 (6 January 2015)

The court found that the respondent was aware of the restraint of trade provisions embodied in the shareholders agreement and the settlement agreement made an order of court. Despite this, the respondent engaged in quantity surveying work for clients serviced by the applicant after termination of employment, including Investec Bank and Clarendon Preparatory School. The respondent's defence that he was merely completing existing work was rejected, as there was no express or implied term in the agreement permitting such conduct. The respondent's actions demonstrated a blameworthy state of mind and proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was in contempt of the court order issued on 28 May...

Citation
[2015] ZAECELLC 3
Parties
Applicant: MMPA Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jason Buret
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 January 2015
Case Number
592/14, ECD 1192/14
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondent declared to be in contempt of the court order issued on 28 May 2013.
Judges
LP Pakade
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Contempt of Court, Shareholder Agreement, Settlement Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Contempt of Court Shareholder Agreement Settlement Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MMPA Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jason Buret

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the restraint of trade provisions in the settlement agreement made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted contempt of the court order issued on 28 May 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to complete work obtained prior to the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the restraint of trade provisions embodied in the shareholders agreement and the settlement agreement made an order of court. Despite this, the respondent engaged in quantity surveying work for clients serviced by the applicant after termination of employment, including Investec Bank and Clarendon Preparatory School. The respondent's defence that he was merely completing existing work was rejected, as there was no express or implied term in the agreement permitting such conduct. The respondent's actions demonstrated a blameworthy state of mind and proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was in contempt of the court order issued on 28 May...

Court Disposition

Respondent declared to be in contempt of the court order issued on 28 May 2013.

Orders

  • The respondent is declared to be in contempt of the court order issued on 28 May 2013.
  • The respondent is directed to show cause on 29 January 2015 why an order should not be made convicting him of contempt of court and, failing to appear or provide a satisfactory explanation, a writ of arrest may be issued for committal to jail for thirty days.