Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Steyn and Another (J1149/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 278; (2016) 37 ILJ 1255 (LC) (4 September 2015)

Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Steyn and Another (J1149/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 278; (2016) 37 ILJ 1255 (LC) (4 September 2015)

The court found that the restraint of trade clause in Steyn's contract did not prohibit employment with a competitor, only with a supplier. While Vox established that IS is a supplier and Steyn breached the supplier restraint, the court held that Vox failed to demonstrate a protectable proprietary interest threatened by Steyn's employment with IS in its supplier capacity. The confidential information and strategic knowledge possessed by Steyn related to IS as a competitor, not as a supplier. The Telkom venture information was also found to be relevant to the competitor relationship, not the supplier relationship. As no protectable interest was established in respect of IS as a supplier,...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 278
Parties
Applicant: Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Murray Steyn; Respondent: Internet Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2015
Case Number
J1149/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant. Undertakings by Steyn regarding the Telkom venture incorporated into the order.
Judges
Myburgh
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Employment Contracts, Supplier Relationships
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Employment Contracts Supplier Relationships

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Murray Steyn

Respondent

Internet Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in Steyn's employment contract prohibits him from taking up employment with Internet Solutions (IS).
  2. 2 Whether Vox has a protectable proprietary interest threatened by Steyn's employment with IS as a supplier.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint is reasonable and enforceable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restraint of trade clause in Steyn's contract did not prohibit employment with a competitor, only with a supplier. While Vox established that IS is a supplier and Steyn breached the supplier restraint, the court held that Vox failed to demonstrate a protectable proprietary interest threatened by Steyn's employment with IS in its supplier capacity. The confidential information and strategic knowledge possessed by Steyn related to IS as a competitor, not as a supplier. The Telkom venture information was also found to be relevant to the competitor relationship, not the supplier relationship. As no protectable interest was established in respect of IS as a supplier,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant. Undertakings by Steyn regarding the Telkom venture incorporated into the order.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent shall not deal with Telkom in respect of any retail business for a period of 12 months commencing 1 July 2015, and shall not disclose to the second respondent any information in relation to the discussions that were underway between Telkom and the applicant in terms of which the applicant may...