Need Legal Advice?

No Matter What Your Bind We Can Help You

Restraint of Trade in South Africa

A restraint of trade is a clause in an employment contract that restricts an employee's ability to work in a competing business or industry for a certain period after leaving a company. In South Africa, restraint of trade agreements are legally binding but subject to certain conditions to be considered enforceable. This comprehensive breakdown will cover all aspects of restraint of trade agreements, their enforceability, and implications.

What is a Restraint of Trade Agreement?

A restraint of trade agreement is a contractual clause that aims to protect a company’s proprietary interests by limiting an employee’s ability to work for competitors or start a competing business after the employment relationship ends. These clauses are designed to protect trade secrets, confidential information, and customer relationships.

How Long is a Restraint of Trade Valid for in South Africa?

The validity of a restraint of trade agreement in South Africa depends on the specific terms outlined in the contract. Typically, the duration can range from six months to two years. However, the enforceability of the duration depends on whether it is deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.

Enforceability of Restraint of Trade Agreements

The enforceability of a restraint of trade agreement is determined by its reasonableness. South African courts assess the following factors:

Geographical Scope: The restriction must be limited to a reasonable geographic area.
Duration: The time period of the restraint must be reasonable.
Nature of the Restriction: The restraint must protect a legitimate business interest without being overly restrictive.
Public Policy: The restraint should not be contrary to public policy or impose an unreasonable burden on the employee’s right to work.

What Happens if You Break a Restraint of Trade?

Breaking a restraint of trade agreement can have serious legal and financial consequences for an employee. Employers have several remedies at their disposal to address breaches of these agreements. Here’s a detailed look at the typical outcomes:

1. Interdict

An interdict is a court order that prevents the employee from continuing with the prohibited activities. If an employer believes that an employee is violating a restraint of trade agreement, they can apply for an interdict to immediately stop the employee from engaging in the contested behaviour.

Types of Interdicts:

Interim Interdict: This is a temporary measure granted quickly to prevent ongoing harm while a full hearing is awaited.
Final Interdict: Granted after a full hearing, this permanently prohibits the employee from breaching the agreement.

Process:

Application to Court: The employer must apply to the court, presenting evidence of the breach.
Court Hearing: A hearing is conducted where both parties can present their arguments.
Court Decision: If the court finds in favour of the employer, the interdict is issued, legally compelling the employee to cease the prohibited activities.

2. Damages

If the employer has suffered financial losses due to the employee's breach of the restraint of trade agreement, they can claim damages. This compensation aims to cover the actual financial impact caused by the breach.

Calculating Damages:

Quantifiable Losses: The employer needs to provide proof of the losses incurred, which can include lost profits, loss of clients, or damage to business reputation.
Legal Proceedings: The employer files a claim for damages in court, and the court assesses the extent of the financial impact based on the evidence presented.

Examples of Damages:

Loss of Confidential Information: If an employee uses trade secrets or confidential information at a new job, the previous employer can claim damages for the competitive disadvantage suffered.
Client Poaching: If the employee attracts clients away from the previous employer, the loss of business can be quantified and claimed as damages.

3. Restraint of Trade Payment

In some cases, a restraint of trade payment can be negotiated to release the employee from the restrictive covenants. This is often a practical solution to avoid prolonged legal battles.

Negotiation Process:

Mutual Agreement: Both parties negotiate a financial settlement that compensates the employer for the potential losses due to the employee’s departure.
Settlement Terms: The terms of the payment and release from the restraint are documented, ensuring both parties have a clear understanding of the agreement.

Benefits:

Avoids Litigation: Settling with a payment can save both parties the time and expense of court proceedings.
Clear Resolution: It provides a definitive end to the matter, allowing both parties to move forward without ongoing legal disputes.

What is a Restraint of Trade Payment?

A restraint of trade payment is a financial compensation offered by an employer to an employee in exchange for agreeing to the terms of a restraint of trade clause. This payment serves as consideration for the employee's commitment to not engage in competitive activities that could harm the employer's business interests after their employment ends.

Purpose of Restraint of Trade Payments

The primary purpose of a restraint of trade payment is to provide fair compensation to the employee for the potential loss of income and employment opportunities due to the restrictions imposed by the restraint clause. This payment acknowledges that the employee might face difficulties in finding new employment or starting a similar business within the restricted period and geographic area.

Negotiation and Flexibility

Restraint of trade payments can also be used as a negotiation tool. In some cases, employees may agree to the restrictive terms of a restraint of trade clause in exchange for a higher salary, bonuses, or a lump-sum payment. Conversely, if an employee wishes to be released from the restraint clause, the employer may agree to a financial settlement that compensates for the employer’s potential losses due to the employee’s departure.

Calculation of Restraint of Trade Payments

The amount of a restraint of trade payment can vary significantly based on several factors, including:

Duration of the Restraint: Longer restraint periods typically warrant higher compensation.
Geographic Scope: Payments may increase if the restraint covers a larger geographic area.
Employee's Role and Influence: Senior employees or those with access to sensitive information might receive higher payments due to the greater risk posed by their potential competition.
Market Conditions: The overall economic environment and industry standards can influence the amount of the payment.

Legal Considerations

While restraint of trade payments can make the restrictive covenants more palatable to employees, they must be reasonable and justifiable. Courts in South Africa will scrutinize these payments to ensure they are fair and not merely a means to enforce an overly restrictive clause. The payment must reflect a genuine effort to balance the employer's need to protect their business interests with the employee’s right to work.

Practical Applications

In practice, restraint of trade payments are often used in the following scenarios:

Executive Contracts: Senior executives or key personnel who possess critical business knowledge may receive restraint payments as part of their employment agreements.
Settlement Agreements: In the event of a dispute or resignation, a restraint payment can be negotiated as part of the settlement to ensure the departing employee adheres to the restrictive covenants.
Employment Offers: New hires might be offered restraint of trade payments to secure their commitment to not join competitors after their tenure with the company.

How Enforceable is a Restraint of Trade in South Africa?

Restraints of trade are generally enforceable if they protect legitimate business interests and do not unreasonably infringe on the employee’s right to work. Courts balance the employer’s need to protect their business with the employee’s right to earn a livelihood.

Does Restraint of Trade Hold Up in Court?

Yes, restraint of trade clauses can hold up in court if they are reasonable and necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. South African courts balance the employer’s right to protect their business with the employee’s right to earn a living. Courts will not enforce a restraint of trade clause that is overly restrictive or serves no legitimate purpose.

When is a Restraint of Trade Unreasonable?

A restraint of trade clause is deemed unreasonable if it:

Imposes an Undue Hardship: Prevents the employee from earning a livelihood without just cause.
Is Overly Broad: Covers an excessively large geographic area or extends for an excessively long period.
Lacks Legitimate Business Interest: Does not protect a genuine proprietary interest of the employer.

Restraint of Trade Clauses in Employment Contracts

Incorporating a restraint of trade clause in employment contracts is a common practice to safeguard business interests. However, the enforceability of these clauses depends on their fairness and reasonableness. Employers must ensure that the restraint is not more restrictive than necessary to protect their interests.

Van Deventer and Van Deventer Inc. – Labour Law Attorneys

In South Africa, a restraint of trade agreement is a critical tool for protecting business interests but must be carefully drafted to ensure enforceability. These agreements must balance the need to protect the employer’s legitimate interests with the employee’s right to work. Understanding the conditions under which these agreements are considered reasonable and enforceable is crucial for both employers and employees.

For further information or legal assistance regarding restraint of trade agreements, contact Van Deventer and Van Deventer Incorporated. Our experienced labour law attorneys are ready to provide the expert guidance you need.