The matter originated with an urgent application lodged by Springpoint Finance (Pty) Ltd, an employer, against a former employee and her new employer, Multivest Financial Planning (Pty) Ltd. The application sought to enforce a restraint of trade agreement. The respondents, the employee and Multivest, opposed the application.
Shortly after the respondents had fully engaged in the legal process, Springpoint Finance elected to withdraw its urgent application. Significantly, the employer withdrew the application without tendering any payment for the respondents’ incurred costs, indicating its intention to pursue the restraint of trade matter in the High Court instead. This withdrawal prompted the respondents to return to the Labour Court, seeking an order for their legal costs under Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules. They contended that they had incurred substantial and unnecessary expense and that fairness dictated that Springpoint Finance should bear these costs, potentially on an attorney-and-own-client scale.
The central legal issue before the Labour Court was whether an employer who withdraws an urgent restraint of trade application should be ordered to pay the legal costs of the respondents. Key to this was the interpretation and application of section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, which governs costs orders in the Labour Court. The Court also had to consider the extent to which the conventional civil law principle of...
By Olivia GomesMay 18, 20260 comments WASHINGTON — A new analysis published by The Atlantic argues that election denial movements once viewed as politically fringe are becoming increasingly embedd...