Bradley Workman-Davies | Director | Werksmans Attorneys | mail me |
The Labour Appeal Court decision in Backsports (Pty) Ltd vs Motlhanke and another offers a useful reminder. Dismissal does not mark the end of an employer’s rights. This remains true where a restraint of trade was carefully agreed and clearly breached.
For employers, the judgment reinforces several important lessons about enforcement, evidence and the limits of sympathy-based reasoning. In other words, it offers clarity in disputes that often resemble the fired and the furious, where emotions run high after termination.
When post-dismissal disputes escalate
At its core, the case addresses a familiar post-dismissal scenario. A senior employee leaves under a cloud. Soon after, the employee approaches customers and colleagues. The employee then tries to avoid restraint enforcement. They often invoke fairness, short service or the fact of dismissal itself.
The Labour Court accepted much of that reasoning. However, the Labour Appeal Court rejected it. This distinction matters for employers dealing with disputes that resemble the fired and the furious, where former employees challenge contractual limits after termination.
The first and perhaps most employer-friendly clarification concerns dismissal. Dismissal alone does not strip an employer of the right to enforce a restraint of trade.
Dismissal does not cancel contractual obligations
The LAC reaffirmed long-standing authority. Where a restraint applies once the employee “ceases to be employed”, the restraint remains enforceable. This rule applies regardless of the reason for termination. Only one exception exists. The dismissal must have been fraudulent or carried out in bad faith to trigger the restraint.
In this case, no evidence suggested bad faith. On the contrary, the employee pleaded guilty to misconduct. The employee also abandoned the unfair dismissal claim. Therefore, the dismissal became legally irrelevant to the restraint enquiry.
This finding carries practical importance. Employers often face arguments that restraint enforcement after dismissal appears punitive or unfair. However, the judgment shows that such claims carry little weight. They only matter if the employer’s conduct is tainted. Contractual consequences, therefore, remain intact even when disputes resemble the fired and the furious.
Protectable interests and clear breaches
The judgment clarifies what constitutes a protectable interest. It also shows how little evidentiary complexity is required when the breach is obvious.
The employer relied on concrete conduct rather than abstract claims of confidential information. The former employee approached major clients. He also provided services in direct competition. In addition, he solicited employees to join him.
These actions did not reflect speculative concerns. They represented observable facts. As a result, the court easily concluded that this conduct targeted the employer’s goodwill and trade connections. These interests remain classic protectable interests in restraint litigation.
Jurisdiction and related misconduct
Importantly, the LAC also rejected another common argument. A relatively short employment period does not automatically weaken restraint enforcement.
Duration may influence reasonableness. However, it does not determine enforceability. Instead, the court emphasised a different question. The key issue concerns what the employee does after leaving. Post-employment conduct, therefore, matters more than tenure.
The judgment also confirms that the Labour Court holds jurisdiction to grant ancillary relief linked to restraint enforcement. The court a quo refused to interdict threats and harassment. It reasoned that the employment relationship had already ended.
The LAC corrected this position decisively. When the Labour Court holds jurisdiction over the main restraint dispute, it may address related conduct as well. This includes threats to employees or sabotage of company assets. Employers, therefore, do not need to litigate across multiple forums. The court can resolve interconnected disputes in one proceeding. This practical clarity becomes valuable when conflicts escalate into situations resembling the fired and the furious.
Evidence and swift employer action
From a practical perspective, the case highlights the importance of swift action and clear evidence. The employer moved urgently. It also identified specific customers and employees involved in the dispute. Most importantly, the employer presented objective proof to the court.
By contrast, the employee relied largely on bare denials. That imbalance influenced the court’s assessment. Ultimately, the judgment reinforces a simple yet contested principle. Restraints of trade do not operate as moral judgments. They also do not depend on an employee’s personal sense of fairness.
Instead, they function as contractual risk-management tools. When an employer proves a legitimate interest and a clear breach, the courts will enforce the restraint. This remains true even when the employment relationship ends abruptly, unhappily or through dismissal.
For employers, the takeaway remains straightforward. Dismissal does not amount to a waiver. Restraints of trade, therefore, remain enforceable. Moreover, post-employment misconduct will not attract sympathy-based exceptions. Courts will not excuse such conduct simply because disputes become emotionally charged.
In other words, even in situations that resemble the fired and the furious, contractual obligations still prevail.
