South Africa: Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better! Recent Judgments Where A Former Employee Starts A Business In Competition With The Employer

Last Updated: 25 February 2014
Article by Regina Milo

Most Read Contributor in South Africa, September 2018

In recent times, our Courts have increasingly been approached to provide recourse to employers to protect their proprietary interests where a former employee leaves and starts a business in competition with the employer. Where the employer has appropriate restraint of trade agreements in place, the employer could seek to enforce those agreements and obtain an interdict restraining the employee from continuing to breach the restraint. However, in the absence of a restraint agreement, would an employer have any recourse at all?

Two recent judgments dealing with the enforcement of restraint of trade agreements make for interesting reading in this regard. They are considered below and the legal position where no restraint agreement has been concluded is also discussed.

Restraints of trade agreements which limit competition: recent developments

In the recent judgment of Freepak BK v Duraan and Another (an as yet unreported judgment of the Northern Cape High Court per Phatshoane J, delivered on 18 October 2013), Mr and Mrs Duraan ("the Duraans") managed the business of Freepak in Kimberley, which sells packaging material to wholesale and retail customers throughout the Northern Cape, Free State and Gauteng provinces. The Duraans were sales people and "the face of the business" for 16 and 15 years respectively. It was common cause that they were both instrumental in building the business of Freepak from a struggling concern to a huge enterprise.

Mr and Mrs Duraan were subject to restraint of trade obligations, in terms of their respective contracts of employment with Freepak. The terms of the restraint of trade inter alia provided that for a period of five years after the termination of employment for whatever reason, he/she could not be involved in any other business which sells similar products as Freepak.

During February 2013, Mr Duraan was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry and summarily dismissed. Mrs Duraan thereafter tendered her immediate resignation. The Duraans then set out to open a business which sells packaging material in competition with Freepak, their previous employer. Freepak, accordingly, brought an application to enforce their respective restraint of trade obligations.

Freepak argued that the Duraans had been privy to confidential information of the business and, consequently, were aware of the pricing structure of its products, profit margins and certain discounts which could be negotiated with clients. Furthermore, Freepak also sought the protection of its customer connections on the basis that the Duraans had virtually exclusive and personal contact with its clients in the Northern Cape, were in possession of the cell phone numbers of the clients and that their relationship with clients was such that clients would call one of the Duraans directly on a regular basis to place orders, to discuss their business needs and, if required, to negotiate pricing.

Even though the terms of the restraint were silent in respect of a specific geographical area within which the restraint would operate, Freepak sought an order that the restraint would only operate in the Northern Cape as that was the area in which the Duraans had operated.

The Duraans sought to avoid the restraint by arguing inter alia that the restraint was invalid and enforceable because it was overbroad and stood to exclude them from participation in the only economic activity in which they had any experience. It was also alleged that it would be unreasonable to enforce the restraint in circumstances where Freepak had dismissed Mr Duraan, which led to the resignation of Mrs Duraan. The Duraans also sought to challenge the restraint on the basis that Freepak did not have a proprietary interest worthy of protection as they were not privy to any confidential information of Freepak because all decisions were taken at the head office in Bloemfontein. The Duraans did not dispute that they had client contact details but argued that this was not indicative of a customer connection, and that a distinction should be drawn between possession of the clients' lists and customer connections. Relying upon the case of Automotive Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens 2007 (2) SA 271 (C), the Duraans argued that they did not have any training and largely acquired knowledge of the business and experience as a result of their own drive, personality and initiative, which they contended constituted skills, general knowledge and experience which they could not be restrained from utilising.

The Court restated the test as set out in Basson v Chilwan and Others 1993 (3) (SA) 742 (A)in determining the reasonableness (or otherwise) of a restraint. It held that Freepak did not make out a compelling case that the Duraans had been privy to its confidential information. However, turning to the possibility of a protectable proprietary interest in the form of customer connections, the Court relied upon the principle contained in the judgment of Den Braven SA (Pty) Ltd v Pillay and Another 2008 (6) SA 229 (D). This principle provides that once it has been concluded that an applicant has trade connections through customer contact which can be exploited by a former employee if employed by a competitor who is trading in a range of similar products, there is a risk of harm to the applicant. The Court found that the Duraans did indeed have a customer connection with Freepak's clients. The Court accordingly found that the risk of harm to Freepak's customer connections could not be discounted in circumstances where the Duraans had been the "face" of Freepak's Kimberley branch for more than a decade and had almost exclusive dealings with its clients throughout the Northern Cape.

The Court dismissed out of hand the contention that it would be unreasonable to enforce the restraint in circumstances where Mr Duraan has been dismissed by Freepak, and confirmed that it was clear from the terms of the restraint that it would be triggered after all forms of termination of employment.

The Court therefore enforced the restraint against Mr and Mrs Duraan, restraining each of them for a period of two years from the date of termination of their employment from being involved in any other business which sells similar products as Freepak in the Northern Cape.

In the same month, the Labour Court in Omnirapid Mining and Industrial Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Engelbrecht (an unreported decision by Rabkin-Naicker J, dated 31 October 2013) also ordered a former employee not to compete with the business of her former employer for a period of one year by interdicting the employee from advertising, marketing or contacting certain identified customers. In this instance, the employee, who had twenty years' experience in the valve sales industry, had terminated her employment as a Sales Manager to start her own business selling valves.

Does an employer enjoy any recourse where there is no signed restraint of trade agreement in place?

Recent cases suggests that, even where an employer does not have a signed restraint of trade agreement in place, it would not necessarily be left without a remedy.

First, a recent private arbitration award has confirmed that the absence of a signed restraint agreement does not mean that it is the end of the road for an employer. In certain circumstances, the tacit acceptance of a written restraint of trade agreement may be established and the restraint accordingly enforced upon an employee.

In this specific case, two employees, who had been the co-proprietors of a business which was then acquired by another company, resigned from their employment with the business to set up a company which would compete with the business that they had sold. In brief, the acquisition agreement concluded between the employees and the acquiring company was subject to the fulfilment of a number of conditions precedent by a particular date, including the conclusion of restraint agreements. Although the parties disputed whether or not restraint agreements had been concluded, it was common cause that the acquiring company was not in possession of any signed restraint agreements. The parties however complied with other obligations arising from the acquisition of the company, such as transferring of shares and the employees were each paid the agreed purchase consideration, which consideration they accepted.

The Arbitrator considered the conduct of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case and concluded that the employees had tacitly accepted the restraint agreements. The Arbitrator accordingly granted an interim order interdicting the employees for a period of three years from conducting themselves contrary to the unsigned restraint of trade agreements.

Whether an unsigned restraint of trade agreement will be binding will always depend on the particular circumstances of the case, but the mere fact that the written agreement has not been signed by the employee does not necessarily mean that the agreement is not binding. The conduct of the parties during the negotiation of the agreement surrounding circumstances and the conduct of employees in relation to the implementation of the unsigned agreement could lead to a conclusion that the agreement is binding.

In another case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) reiterated the principle enunciated in the earlier Appellate Division (AD) case of A Becker & Co (Pty) Ltd v Becker and others 1981 (3) (SA) 406 (A), to the effect that even where the restraint period has since expired, the seller of a business would still not be permitted to solicit business from its former customers. In G Van der Watt & another v Jonker and others 2012 (JOL) 28266 (SCA), the SCA considered an appeal against a judgment of the High Court enforcing a restraint of trade agreement against Mr and Mrs Van der Watt ("the Van der Watts").

The facts of this case are as follows: Mr Jonker started various petroleum companies forming part of what was referred to as the "Agri Group". Mr van der Watt, a family friend, started working for Jonker in some of the businesses. Van der Watt was ultimately offered shares in two of the Agri Group companies and started another company in the Agri Group, which he co-owned with Jonker. The parties thereafter acquiesced to a separation of the group companies. A written agreement was concluded recording the terms upon which the parties agreed to separate the businesses, each as a going concern. In terms of this agreement, and in order to effect a fair and equitable division, Jonker would pay the Van der Watts R2 million. Both parties provided reciprocal restraint of trade undertakings in favour of the other party enduring for a period of ten years.

After the Van der Watts started a petroleum business, Dynamic Fuels, within the prohibited areas referred to in the restraint, Jonker sought interdictory relief in terms of the restraint of trade agreement. The Court found that the uncontroverted facts demonstrated that the Van der Watts actively solicited Agri group's customers by marketing their petroleum products at the Koppies Club, which a number of them frequented, at a golf day, and had also made at least one direct approach to a Agri Group customer. The Court stated that there was no difference between the type of general canvassing conducted by the Van der Watts to the Agri Group customers and the type of solicitation considered by the AD in Becker, and it was not necessary to prove that the Van der Watts had made direct overtures to Agri Group's customers.

The Court held that the matter fell squarely within what it referred to as the "Becker principles" in that the Van der Watts sought to take back that which they had sold, namely the old customers with whom they did business whilst part of the Agri Group. The Court referred to the following extract from the Becker case:

"When a business is sold with its goodwill, but without any express promise not to compete, the seller is privileged to open a new business in competition with the buyer; but he is under obligation not to solicit his former customers or to conduct his business under such a name and in such a manner as to deprive the buyer of the "goodwill" that he paid for".

The SCA thus upheld the findings of the High Court and enforced the restraint upon the Van der Watts for a period of ten years.

This judgment is not only authority for the enforcement of a restraint of trade agreement. It also reiterates the principle that, even at the end of the restraint, the seller of a business is still prohibited from soliciting the goodwill which he previously sold. Therefore, where a former proprietor who remains in the business as an employee, terminates his employment to start a business in competition with his former employer, even in the absence of a valid restraint agreement, the employee (i.e. the seller) may be prohibited from soliciting his old customers.

The best form of protection to protect an employer's proprietary interests from exploitation by a former employee remains a restraint of trade agreement. Employers should periodically identify which of its employees are privy to confidential information and/or have customer connections, and seek to ensure that appropriate restraint of trade agreements are concluded with those employees. In the absence of a signed restraint of trade agreement, however, employers are not necessarily without recourse as our Courts, in certain instances, have still afforded some protection to employers. Careful legal advice should therefore be taken in those circumstances to establish whether an employer has any right of recourse.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions