Former employee Ryan Holmes has been cleared of violating a restraint of trade agreement, enabling him to continue his role as IT manager at Universal Safety Products (USP).
The case arose when Holmes resigned from his position as an information infrastructure coordinator at Select PPE (Pty) Ltd (SPPE) and took up a new position at USP. SPPE swiftly launched legal proceedings, arguing that Holmes’ employment with USP would contravene a restrictive covenant that forbade him from engaging with competing enterprises for a period of one year following his departure from the company. SPPE claimed that the two firms were direct competitors, and that Holmes’ experience and knowledge would compromise its interests.
However, Labour Court Acting Judge S Snyman, presiding over the case, found SPPE’s claims to be unsubstantiated. The court reached the conclusion that USP operates primarily as a manufacturer, distinguishing it from SPPE’s retail model, and therefore Holmes’ role at USP did not conflict with the restraint of trade agreement. There was a clear failure from SPPE to demonstrate any significant protectable interest related to trade connections or confidential information that could be compromised by Holmes’ employment at USP.
“The reason for this is threefold,” noted Judge Snyman in the ruling. “First, USP is not in competition with SPPE and as such, the employment of Holmes with USP is not a breach of the restraint of trade. Second, SPPE has failed to demonstrate the existence of any protectable interest when it comes to trade connections. Third, SPPE has not established that Holmes’ new position at USP would risk its confidential information to a degree that would justify the prohibition of his employment.”
While the court dismissed SPPE’s attempt to enforce the restraint, it recognised the potential risk surrounding confidential information. Holmes had access to proprietary data during his tenure at SPPE, prompting the court to recommend an order that would safeguard the company’s confidential materials. Admission from Holmes indicated he would comply with a formal undertaking to avoid disclosing sensitive information, reassuring SPPE of his intention to protect their interests.
The ruling emphasised that while there are recognised grounds for enforcing such agreements, concrete evidence must be presented to demonstrate actual competition or risk posed to the employer’s interests. Further, it determined that not only did SPPE fail to establish a competitive threat, but also that there was a lack of significant relationships Holmes may have developed during his time with SPPE that could harm the company. “SPPE has relied heavily on speculative assertions rather than verifiable evidence,” remarked the judge.
