Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd v Volschenk (2891/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 55 (13 December 2011)

Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd v Volschenk (2891/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 55 (13 December 2011)

The court found that the applicant's confidential information had come into the possession of a direct competitor, justifying the applicant's apprehension and the institution of proceedings. The respondent conceded the relief sought, except for costs, and the court held that the applicant was entitled to costs only up to the date of the issue of the rule nisi, as the subsequent filing of multiple affidavits was unnecessary after the respondent's concession. The rule nisi was confirmed and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs up to and including the issue of the rule nisi.

Citation
[2011] ZAECPEHC 55
Parties
Applicant: Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lambertus Izak Volschenk
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Case Number
2891/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed. Respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs up to and including the issue of the rule nisi on 19 October 2010.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Interdict, Costs Award
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Interdict Costs Award

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Lambertus Izak Volschenk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the restraint of trade and confidentiality undertakings after leaving the applicant's employ.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was justified in seeking an urgent interdict against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's confidential information had come into the possession of a direct competitor, justifying the applicant's apprehension and the institution of proceedings. The respondent conceded the relief sought, except for costs, and the court held that the applicant was entitled to costs only up to the date of the issue of the rule nisi, as the subsequent filing of multiple affidavits was unnecessary after the respondent's concession. The rule nisi was confirmed and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs up to and including the issue of the rule nisi.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed. Respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs up to and including the issue of the rule nisi on 19 October 2010.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 19 October 2010 is confirmed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs up to and including the issue of the rule nisi on 19 October 2010.