Truworths Limited v de Bruyn and Another (2174/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 11; (2020) 41 ILJ 1617 (WCC) (21 February 2020)

Truworths Limited v de Bruyn and Another (2174/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 11; (2020) 41 ILJ 1617 (WCC) (21 February 2020)

The court found that while Truworths had a proprietary interest deserving protection, the evidence did not establish that Ms de Bruyn's employment with Adidas threatened those interests. The nature of her work at Adidas was materially different, and any confidential information she possessed regarding Truworths'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Truworths Limited; Respondent: Danielle de Bruyn; Respondent: Adidas (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Case Number
2174/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Urgent Interim Relief Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including the fees of two counsel.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Contract, Confidential Information, Public Policy, Enforceability of Contracts
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Employment Contract Confidential Information Public Policy Enforceability of Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Truworths Limited

Applicant

Danielle de Bruyn

Respondent

Adidas (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Urgent Interim Relief Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade agreement between Truworths and Ms de Bruyn is enforceable in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether Truworths has a proprietary interest deserving protection after termination of employment.
  3. 3 Whether Ms de Bruyn's employment with Adidas threatens Truworths' protectable interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while Truworths had a proprietary interest deserving protection, the evidence did not establish that Ms de Bruyn's employment with Adidas threatened those interests. The nature of her work at Adidas was materially different, and any confidential information she possessed regarding Truworths' 'Hey Betty' range was of limited and diminishing utility, given the passage of time and the distinct market segments. The restraint was not justified in the circumstances, as Truworths' interests did not outweigh Ms de Bruyn's right to work and be economically productive. The restraint agreement, as sought to be enforced, was unreasonable and contrary to public policy....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including the fees of two counsel.

Orders

  • Non-compliance with time periods, forms, and manner of service is condoned; the application is entertained as one of urgency.
  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the fees of two counsel.