- Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest claim that Maersk Logistics and the former employees used confidential business systems and insider knowledge to launch their own competing cold storage operations.
- Maersk Logistics, along with Nel, Pienaar, Lewis, and Lovember, argued that the claim was flawed because it did not specifically allege malicious intent.
- The High Court disagreed, allowing the unlawful competition claim to proceed to trial.
A dispute over whether a competitor can recruit employees and use confidential company information to build a rival business is now heading to trial.
Southern African Fruit Terminals (Pty) Ltd and Coldharvest (Pty) Ltd brought the case against Maersk Logistics and Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd, together with Marius Nel, Desmond Pienaar, Shaun Lewis, and Franco Lovember.
Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest allege that Maersk Logistics and the four former employees relied on confidential operational information and insider knowledge from their staff to set up competing cold storage facilities.
Judge D Wille of the High Court in the Western Cape dismissed the objections raised by Maersk Logistics and the four individuals, ruling that the allegations, if proven, could support a claim for unlawful competition.
Businesses built around specialised systems
Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest run businesses that cool, store, and prepare fruit and other perishable products for export. They say their operations depend on specialised internal systems to manage cooling, workflow, compliance, and pricing.
They maintain that this information is part of their confidential business systems, accessible only to a select group of employees bound by confidentiality agreements. They argue it gives them a competitive edge in the export fruit logistics sector, an advantage that would greatly benefit any newcomer to the market.
Allegations of a coordinated recruitment scheme
Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest allege that Maersk Logistics built two cold storage facilities designed to compete directly with them.
They also claim that Nel and Pienaar were still on their payroll when they allegedly gave technical advice to Maersk Logistics about developing the new facilities, advice which, according to the companies, was based on confidential knowledge acquired during their employment.
Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest further allege that Lewis and Lovember, both former employees, had access to confidential personnel and operational information that was later used by Maersk Logistics to run its competing business.
They claim this alleged scheme helped Maersk Logistics hire 23 managers and operational staff from their teams, allowing Maersk to shortcut the time and costs involved in building its own operational systems and workforce from scratch.
The legal argument raised by Maersk Logistics
Maersk Logistics and the four individuals challenged the legal basis of the claim before the matter could go to trial.
They argued that persuading employees to move to another company is usually legal, unless the goal is to destroy a competitor’s business. Because of this, they said Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest needed to allege malicious intent as part of their claim.
Judge Wille rejected this argument, explaining that South African law does not require proof of malice in claims involving interference with contractual relationships.
Judge Wille also reaffirmed that confidential business information is legally protected in employment relationships. He noted: “An employee who takes his employer’s confidential information and uses it to compete with their employer or former employer acts unlawfully, even after the employment relationship has ended.”
Case proceeds to trial
Judge Wille concluded that the documents filed by Southern African Fruit Terminals and Coldharvest clearly outline an alleged plan to use confidential information and employee recruitment to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
He said the claim describes “a springboard scheme to exploit an unlawful competitive advantage, resulting in economic harm.”
Because the claim was properly pleaded, the court ruled that Maersk Logistics and the four individuals must now respond to the allegations.
The High Court dismissed the objections with costs, ordering Maersk Logistics and the individual defendants to submit their next set of documents by 17 April 2026.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
