About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZAWCHC 153
|
|
Dudley Wolhuter Insurance & Investment Brokers CC v KNott (2699/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 153 (29 February 2008)
JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE
OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO
:
2699/2008
DATE
:
29
FEBRUARY 2008
In
the matter between:
DUDLEY
WOLHUTER INSURANCE &
Applicant
INVESTMENT
BROKER CC
and
LYNETTE
KNOTT
Respondent
JUDGMENT
TRAVERSO.
DJP:
[1]
This was an application in terms whereof the applicant applied for
inter
alia
the
following relief on an urgent basis:
"1.
That the respondent be restrained and interdicted from in any way
using or disclosing to any person any of the applicant's
confidential
information and more particularly the identity of any of the
applicant's clients whose names appear on the applicant's
client
list, or its clients' database, or the identity of the contact person
employed by those clients.
Disclosing
the details of the insurance policies held by any of the applicant's
clients whose names appear on the applicants client
list or database
to any person.
Disclosing
the details of the applicant's client list or database or the
contents thereof to any other person".
[2]
It is common cause between the parties that the respondent was
employed by the applicant in the insurance industry. It is common
cause that she was retrenched and it is common cause that at one
stage while she was on vacation she emailed the client list to
her
computer at home, according to her affidavits she did this because
she had to service those clients while on holiday as the
applicant
did not have the infrastructure to do so. It is common cause that the
client Jist was handed in as an Exhibit at the
disciplinary hearing
and clearly the applicant is not entitled to the return of that list.
[3]
The respondent states on several occasions that she no longer has the
list, on her computer nor does she have a hard copy thereof.
She says
she knows the list off by heart because these are old clients that
followed her from the place where she was previously
employed in the
same industry. Mr
de
Haan
who appeared for the Appficant very fairly conceded that his client
was not entitled to the relief claimed in the notice of motion
that
at best the applicant was entitled to some kind of undertaking from
the Respondent that she will not use any of the information
that she
obtained from the data list unfairly, that she will delete such data
from her computer and return any hard copies that
she may have.
[4]
He also sought an undertaking that as regards the list which is in
the possession of the Respondent's attorney, Mr Kulenkampff,
he will
only use the list for purposes of further steps that will be taken
pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry.
[5]
Mr
Kulenkampff
,
in his personal capacity and on behalf of his client, tendered such
an undertaking in court. I note that such an undertaking has
been
made and I am not going to include it in any order. I have two
respected legal practioners before me and I accept unreservedly
that
their word is their bond.
[6]
From this it follows that the applicant is not successful in the
application and in the circumstances, subject to the
undertakings
to which I have referred, the application is dismissed, with costs.
TRAVERSO, D J P