Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Venter and Others v Twenty Four Motors CC ta Ford Ermelo (JA34/2024) [2024] ZALAC 32 (28 June 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court set aside enforcement of restraint of trade agreements, finding no proven protectable interest in the employer’s second-hand vehicle business.
Process Pipe (Natal) (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another (J 998/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 252 (23 August 2023)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent application to enforce a restraint of trade, finding no sufficient protectable interest and no basis to stop the respondent’s new employment.
A.I.G Sales (Pty) Ltd v Hutt and Another (J442/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 257 (17 December 2020)
The Labour Court discharged a rule nisi enforcing a restraint of trade, finding the employer’s confidential information no longer warranted protection.
Coninghamlee and Associates (Pty) Ltd v Watson and Others (D1627-18) [2018] ZALCD 18 (19 September 2018)
The court found that while the applicant has a protectable interest in its customer connections, the restraint sought—a one-year prohibition on working in recruitment anywhere in South Africa—is unreasonable. The respondents' skills and experience are limited to the recruitment industry, and the restraint would unfairly prevent them from earning a livelihood. The applicant failed to demonstrate a protectable interest in confidential information, as no unique or sensitive information was shown to be at risk. The applicant's established reputation and client base enable it to withstand competit…
Source excerpt
Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd v Neille (26039/17) [2017] ZAGPJHC 219 (28 July 2017)
The court found that the applicant has a protectable interest in its confidential information and customer connections, including its database of sellers and buyers, which are proprietary assets. The respondent admitted to accessing and contacting clients from this database, constituting a breach of the restraint. However, the court held that the restraint as originally formulated was overbroad in duration, given the nature of the residential property market, the short lifespan of customer connections, and the lack of exclusive mandates. The court limited the restraint to three months, findin…
Source excerpt
Benchmark Signs Incorporated v Muller and Another (J1153/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 238 (7 July 2016)
The Labour Court refused to enforce a three-year nationwide restraint of trade, finding it unreasonable and declining partial enforcement raised too late.
Benchmark Signs Incorporated v Daniel and Another (J1153/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 264 (7 July 2016)
The court found that the restraint of trade clause imposed by the applicant was unreasonable in both its three-year duration and nationwide geographic scope. The applicant failed to lay a proper factual basis for partial enforcement, raising the issue only in reply and without conceding the overbreadth of the restraint. The employee's prior lack of industry experience and the change in the applicant's business model further undermined the justification for such a broad restraint. The pending constructive dismissal dispute before the CCMA was irrelevant to the enforceability of the restraint.…
Source excerpt
Showgroupworld (Pty) Ltd v Johannes and Another (J1876/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 353 (12 October 2015)
The Labour Court enforced a restraint of trade in part, finding a protectable interest but reducing a 30-month restraint to 12 months as unreasonable in duration.
Eagleburgmann Seals SA (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo (11211/14) [2015] ZAKZDHC 53 (22 June 2015)
The High Court enforced a restraint of trade against a former sales representative, finding the agreement valid and necessary to protect confidential information and customer connections.
Kelly Group Limited v Capazorio and Others (15484/2010) [2010] ZAGPJHC 139 (7 December 2010)
High Court refused to enforce a restraint of trade against a former executive, finding the businesses were not the same or similar and no protectable interest was shown.
Explore more
