Warwick Wealth (Pty) Ltd v Anderson and others
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Moshoana J |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 JDR 2622 (LC) |
| Hearing Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | C178/2023 |
| Court | Labour Court |
Moshoana J:
Introduction
2023 JDR 2622 p2
Moshoana J
This is an urgent application seeking to restrain and interdict a former employee of the applicant. The application is opposed by the first respondent (the former employee).
Urgency was challenged, however, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, heard the application as one of urgency. The core disput in this matter is one of whether there is a breach of the terms of the restraint. It being motion proceedings, ultimately a dispute of fact, if any genuine one exists, would be resolved by application of the Plascon Evans test.
Background facts
Given the narrow basis on which the present application fulcrums, a detailed narration of the facts may not be necessary. Ms. Julie Caroline Anderson (Anderson) commenced employment with the applicant, Warwick Wealth (Pty) Ltd (Warwick) on 1 June 2019 as a Client Relationship Specialist (CRS). Prior to commencement of employment, Warwick and Anderson concluded and signed an employment contract on 7 May 2019. The said employment contract incorporated a restraint of trade clause. In terms of clause 10 of the employment contract, Anderson undertook that for a period of three years after the date of termination she will not do certain things as spelled out in clause.
On or about 21 December 2022, Anderson resigned from employment with Warwick with immediate effect. In a four paged resignation letter, Anderson lamented intolerable working conditions which forced her to resign. Warwick accepted her resignation letter and sought to hold her to the notice period of three months as stipulated in the employment contract. Anderson was also informed that Warwick reserves the right to enforce the restraint of trade against her by way of an interdict. In correspondents it was mentioned to Anderson that should she be contacted by any client of Warwick she should act in line with clause 10.5.4 of the restraint clause. The clause prohibits contact with clients of Spirit Invest Group (SIG) or providing business service of whatever nature to the clients of SIG or solicit business from those clients.
2023 JDR 2622 p3
Moshoana J
Anderson in some correspondence exchanged regarding the resignation terms and notice period issue undertook to comply with the restraint clause. However, Warwick alleges that contrary to the undertaking, it discovered on 28 March 2023 that Anderson approached Westlake Golf Club (Westlake), an entity within Warwick’s Network, and effectively solicited it by effecting a sponsorship for Westlake through the second respondent. Such conduct was allegedly in direct violation of the restraint. Anderson vehemently denies these allegations of breach and alleges that Westlake does not belong to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial