Zero Model Management (Pty) Ltd v Barnard and Another (25541/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 232 (18 December 2009)

Zero Model Management (Pty) Ltd v Barnard and Another (25541/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 232 (18 December 2009)

The court found that the applicant had a legitimate protectable interest in its trade connections with models managed under its agency, which justified the restraint of trade imposed on the first respondent. The restraint was limited to competitors in the Cape Metropolitan Area and for a period of one year, which was considered reasonable and proportional to the applicant's interests. The first respondent's undertaking not to approach the applicant's models was deemed insufficient, given prior breaches and the risk of further harm. The urgency of the matter was accepted due to the imminent expiry of the restraint and the inability to obtain adequate redress later. The court held that the...

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 232
Parties
Applicant: Zero Model Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cheryl Barnard; Respondent: Y Models (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Case Number
25541/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted. Final interdict issued enforcing the restraint of trade.
Judges
Breitenbach AJ
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Enforceability of Contracts, Protectable Interest, Urgent Interdict, Public Policy, Confidential Information
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Enforceability of Contracts Protectable Interest Urgent Interdict Public Policy 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zero Model Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Cheryl Barnard

Respondent

Y Models (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade agreement between the applicant and first respondent is enforceable under South African law.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a protectable interest justifying enforcement of the restraint.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint is reasonable and not contrary to public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had a legitimate protectable interest in its trade connections with models managed under its agency, which justified the restraint of trade imposed on the first respondent. The restraint was limited to competitors in the Cape Metropolitan Area and for a period of one year, which was considered reasonable and proportional to the applicant's interests. The first respondent's undertaking not to approach the applicant's models was deemed insufficient, given prior breaches and the risk of further harm. The urgency of the matter was accepted due to the imminent expiry of the restraint and the inability to obtain adequate redress later. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final interdict issued enforcing the restraint of trade.

Orders

  • The first respondent is interdicted from directly or indirectly carrying on or being engaged or interested in the business of any of the applicant’s competitors in the Cape Metropolitan Area, including the second respondent, prior to 25 April 2010.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.