South Africa Case Law

SD Noorgat Trading Enterprise CC t/a Powertrade Cash and Carry (Focus Group) v Mahomed (1179/21P)

SD Noorgat Trading Enterprise CC t/a Powertrade Cash and Carry (Focus Group) v Mahomed (1179/21P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 2 (28 January 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1179/21P

Judge

Bezuidenhout AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to prove improper use or possession of confidential information by the respondent. The respondent's version, supported by correspondence and affidavits, was that the information was retained solely to quantify his claim against the applicant and to defend against threatened damages claims. There was no evidence that the respondent used the information as a springboard for himself or his new employer, nor that any unlawful conduct occurred. The delay of over a year in bringing the application undermined the effectiveness and fairness of the relief soug…

Source excerpt

• Confidential Information
• Final Interdict
• Springboard Doctrine
• Unlawful Competition
• Employment Relationship
• Costs Order

Africa Parts Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Titan Auto Parts (Pty) Ltd and Others (20/39009)

Africa Parts Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Titan Auto Parts (Pty) Ltd and Others (20/39009) [2022] ZAGPJHC 8; 2022 BIP 554 (GJ) (17 January 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/39009

Judge

SK Hassim

High Court dismissed an interdict application based on alleged unlawful competition, confidential information misuse, and employment restraint breaches.

• Unlawful Competition
• Confidential Information
• Springboard Doctrine
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Interdictory Relief
• Unlawful-competition

Genesis One Lighting v Jamieson and Others (19/3212)

Genesis One Lighting v Jamieson and Others (19/3212) [2019] ZAGPJHC 93 (18 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19/3212

Judge

Mahalelo

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to the protection of its confidential information, which was acquired and disclosed by the first respondent in breach of a binding Confidentiality Agreement. The evidence showed that the respondents used the applicant's confidential information—including supplier details, pricing, product specifications, and artwork—to compete unlawfully. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the information was not confidential or was publicly available, holding that the information was objectively worthy of protection and tha…

Source excerpt

• Confidential Information
• Restraint Of Trade
• Springboard Doctrine
• Interim Interdict
• Breach Of Confidentiality Agreement

Dr DM De Jongh & Associates No. 64 Incorporated v Botha and Another (34071/2017)

Dr DM De Jongh & Associates No. 64 Incorporated v Botha and Another (34071/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 570 (13 April 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34071/2017

Judge

Hattingh

High Court matter on a medical restraint of trade: the court found a valid proprietary interest, but held the three-year restraint excessive and granted no interdict.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Consultancy Agreement
• Enforceability Of Contracts
• Proprietary Interest
• Springboard Doctrine
• Restraint-of-trade

Traka Africa (Pty) Limited v AMaya Industries and Another (2015/2082)

Traka Africa (Pty) Limited v AMaya Industries and Another (2015/2082) [2016] ZAGPJHC 24 (18 February 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/2082

Judge

L Adams

The High Court granted interdicts enforcing confidentiality obligations after finding a former employee had copied and disclosed confidential business information to a competitor.

• Confidential Information
• Restraint Of Trade
• Unlawful Competition
• Springboard Doctrine
• Customer Lists
• Breach Of Confidentiality

Lonrho Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Toll Global Forwarding (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Others (9817/2015)

Lonrho Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Toll Global Forwarding (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Others (9817/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 153 (23 October 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9817/2015

Judge

J Cloete

The High Court granted a final interdict, finding unlawful use of confidential information and springboarding in a perishable freight competition dispute.

• Unlawful Competition
• Misuse Of Confidential Information
• Springboard Doctrine
• Staff Poaching
• Restraint Of Trade
• Interdictory Relief

BKB Limited and Another v Collins and Another (1016/2011)

BKB Limited and Another v Collins and Another (1016/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 107 (12 May 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1016/2011

Judge

Pickering

High Court case on unlawful competition and confidential client data, granting a one-year interdict against former insurance staff and brokers.

• Unlawful Competition
• Confidential Information
• Fiduciary Duties
• Interdict
• Springboard Doctrine
• Unlawful-competition

Strike Productions (Pty) Ltd v Bon View Trading 131 (Pty) Ltd and Others (10/21704)

Strike Productions (Pty) Ltd v Bon View Trading 131 (Pty) Ltd and Others (10/21704) [2011] ZAGPJHC 1 (20 January 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10/21704

Judge

Saldulker

High Court dismissed an urgent bid to interdict a lighting technician and his new employer from working on IDOLS, finding no protectable trade secrets.

• Unlawful Competition
• Confidential Information
• Restraint Of Trade
• Fiduciary Duties
• Springboard Doctrine
• Trade Secrets

Jetvest 1099 BK En Ander v Engelbrecht En Ander (7551/2008)

Jetvest 1099 BK En Ander v Engelbrecht En Ander (7551/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 146; 2009 BIP 376 (C) (27 February 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7551/2008

Judge

PB Fourie

The court found that the applicants' computer system, while composed of generic software, was uniquely configured and integrated for their business, and this configuration was not public knowledge but known only to a restricted group within the applicants' enterprise. The first respondent, as a former member and employee, acquired intimate knowledge of this system and used it to establish a competing business, replicating key features and processes. This conduct amounted to the unlawful appropriation of confidential business information and trade secrets, giving the respondents a springboard…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Competition
• Trade Secrets
• Confidential Information
• Springboard Doctrine
• Final Interdict
• Fiduciary Duties

Glazing Vision (Pty) Ltd v Rogers and Others (18325/2008)

Glazing Vision (Pty) Ltd v Rogers and Others (18325/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 110 (3 February 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18325/2008

Judge

Traverso

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding the time limit for oral argument caused no prejudice and that the springboard finding was supported by evidence.

• Unlawful Competition
• Springboard Doctrine
• Unlawful-competition
• Springboard-doctrine
• Leave-to-appeal