Automotive Tooling Systems v Wilkens

Last updated

Automotive II Tooling Systems v Wilkens
Court Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Full case nameAutomotive Tooling Systems (PTY) LTD v Sarel Johannes Wilkens and Five Others
Decided28 September 2006 (2006-09-28)
Citation(s)[2006] SCA 128 (RSA); Case No. 581/05
Transcript(s)
Court membership
Judges sitting Farlam, Nugent, Lewis, Maya JJA and Cachalia AJA
Case opinions
Decision byCachalia AJA
Keywords
Restraint of trade covenant

Automotive II Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens & others was an important case in South African labour law, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa confirmed the principle that a restraint of trade would be considered unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and thus unenforceable, if it does not protect some legally recognisable interest of the employer and merely seeks to exclude or eliminate competition. [1]

Contents

The court further pointed out that the dividing line between the use by an employee of his own skill, knowledge and experience, which he cannot be restrained from using, and the use of his employer's trade secrets or confidential information or other interest, which he may not disclose if bound by a restraint, is often very difficult to define. What must be clear, according to the court, is that the interest is one that might properly be described as belonging to the employer rather than to the employee, and in that sense "proprietary to the employer."

Background

In this particular case, the business of the appellant was in a specialised technological field relating to the design, manufacture and/or customisation of special-purpose machines and tooling. The respondents had been employed as skilled toolmakers. They concluded a restraint of trade and confidentiality clause with the appellant. The respondents subsequently resigned and took up employment with the third respondent. The respondents did the same work for the third respondent that they had done for the appellant.

Arguments

The appellant claimed to have a proprietary interest in the know-how acquired by the respondents and sought to interdict them, relying on the restraint of trade clause.

The respondents denied the proprietary interest claimed and contended that the relevant know-how acquired by the first and second respondents was neither confidential nor specific to the appellant's business but was commonly available to artisans and technicians. As a result, it was argued that the knowledge formed part of the first and second respondents' stock of general knowledge, skill and experience, with which they were entitled to earn their living in any other business.

Judgment

The SCA pointed out that the mere fact that former employees take up employment with a competitor does not in itself entitle the appellant (the former employer) to any relief if all they will be doing is to apply their skills and knowledge acquired whilst in the employ of the appellant.

The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had failed to establish a proprietary interest that might legitimately be protected, concluding that the restraint was inimical to public policy and therefore unenforceable.

Related Research Articles

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Some courts refer to these as "restrictive covenants". As a contract provision, a CNC is bound by traditional contract requirements including the consideration doctrine.

Afrox Healthcare Ltd v Strydom, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on May 13, 2002, with judgment handed down on May 31.

In Canada, trade secrets are generally considered to include information set out, contained or embodied in, but not limited to, a formula, pattern, plan, compilation, computer program, method, technique, process, product, device or mechanism; it may be information of any sort; an idea of a scientific nature, or of a literary nature, as long as they grant an economical advantage to the business and improve its value. Additionally, there must be some element of secrecy. Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be the subject-matter of a trade secret.

Durban's Water Wonderland (Pty) Ltd v Botha is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 16 November 1998, with judgment handed down on 27 November. The judges were Van Heerden DCJ, Howie JA, Harms JA, Scott JA and Melunsky AJA. PJ Olsen appeared as counsel for the appellant, and P. Ellis for the respondents.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC ; PM Wulfsohn SC appeared for the respondents.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Mahdi and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 28 August 2008, with judgment handed down on 3 March 2009. PM Kennedy SC appeared for the appellant. There was no appearance for the first respondent, while AE Franklin SC appeared for the second respondent and PJ Olsen SC for the amicus curiae.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

David Crouch Marketing CC v Du Plessis is an important case in South African labour law, with judgment handed down on June 17, 2009, the case having been heard on May 21, 2009. It was heard in the Labour Court in Johannesburg by Basson J. Snyman Attorneys represented the applicant; Mr Macartney of Macartney Attorneys appeared for the respondent. The case confirmed a legal principle.

In Reddy v Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Minister of Health & another v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd & others: in re Application for Declaratory Relief is an important case in South African law, with significance especially in the areas of civil procedure and constitutional law.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

In Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd v De Valence, an important case in South African law, the Supreme Court of Appeal once more affirmed that a duty cast upon a defendant might be such that it is discharged only if reasonable precautions to avoid the harm are actually taken, and that the defendant who appoints another to take those steps, and fails to do so, will be liable for the failure, although it was careful to emphasise that Stratford ACJ did not purport to say that "there might be liability as an invariable rule whenever the work entails danger to the public." Goldstone AJA said that "the correct approach to the liability of an employer for the negligence of an independent contractor is to apply the fundamental rule that obliges a person to exercise that degree of care which the circumstances demand."

Non-solicitation, in contract law, refers to an agreement, typically between an employer and employee, that prohibits an employee from utilizing the company's clients, customers and contact lists for personal gain upon leaving the company.

References

  1. ↑ Automotive Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens & others( Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa ). Text


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.