Online Symposium on Recent Developments in African PIL (V) – Cross-border employment, competition and delictual liability merge in the South African High Court: Placement International Group Limited v Pretorius and Others

As a part of the second on-line symposium on latest developments in African non-public worldwide regulation, we’re happy to current the fifth contribution, kindly ready by Elisa Rinaldi (College of Pretoria, South Africa) on Cross-border employment, competitors and delictual legal responsibility merge within the South African Excessive Court docket: Placement Worldwide Group Restricted v Pretorius and Others.

The Excessive Court docket of South Africa not too long ago heard a dispute that involved an utility for interim reduction to interdict South African rivals from competing within the subject of worldwide recruitment.[i] The case of Placement Worldwide Group Restricted v Pretorius and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC 1252 centred on the work undertaken by worldwide hiring firms who, with the rise of transnational employment, facilitate the recruitment and placement of potential staff from anyplace on the planet. The applicant on this dispute, Placement Worldwide Group Restricted, an organization included in Hong Kong, is a hiring firm who labored to supply candidates in South Africa for employment alternatives abroad. The dispute was introduced by Placement Worldwide in opposition to a earlier worker who, upon leaving the applicant’s employment, went on to determine her personal hiring firm. The respondents, a South African nationwide, and her firm, Integricore International (Pty) Ltd, included in South Africa, aimed to facilitate the hiring of South African candidates, leading to direct competitors with the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant turned to the South African Excessive Court docket to request that they interdict Integricore from sourcing candidates in South Africa as they thought of this to quantity to illegal competitors. The reduction sought by the applicant was primarily based on South African frequent regulation.

The alleged illegal competitors arose out of an employment relationship between the applicant and respondent. The central competition by the applicant was that the respondent had breached her fiduciary duties by establishing Integricore and dealing in direct competitors with Placement Worldwide.[ii] The applicant argued that the data relating to potential candidates and firms was proprietary confidential data which the respondent required and used so as to set up Integricore.[iii]  The correct to say reduction for breach of an worker’s fiduciary duties exists in South African frequent regulation, granting the aggrieved occasion a proper to say below both delict or contract.[iv] Such an election is permitted in South African regulation and on this case, the applicant determined to say below delictual breach of fiduciary responsibility fairly than below the phrases of the contract.

The choice to say below delict prompted an fascinating investigation into the integrity of such declare. The reason is is that the employment contract, between the applicant and responded, contained a restraint of commerce clause which, as in response to the selection of regulation clause inside the contract, ought to have been ruled by Hong Kong regulation.[v] The applicant, nevertheless, determined to not implement the contractual provision for causes that turned out to be fairly fascinating. Whereas employers are stated to be in a usually stronger bargaining place relating to alternative of regulation, on this occasion the selection of Honk Kong regulation utilized in opposition to the employer. Because it got here to be revealed, the place of restraint of commerce clauses in Hong Kong regulation is that they’re usually void for being in opposition to public coverage.[vi] That is the case except the employer is ready to present that the restrictions are mandatory to guard their respectable enterprise pursuits. In South Africa the place is reversed. Restraint of commerce clauses are usually legitimate and enforceable except they’re deemed unreasonable.[vii] In figuring out whether or not a restraint of commerce clause is unreasonable, a courtroom will take into account whether or not the enterprise curiosity is deserving of safety and weigh this in opposition to the pursuits, of the previous worker, to earn a residing. Regardless of this distinction, the applicant selected to depend on South African frequent regulation as an alternative of the contract, possible due to the truth that the applying of Hong Kong regulation wouldn’t consequence of their favour.

The choice to depend on the frequent regulation led the Excessive Court docket to think about whether or not this amounted to an abuse of course of. Motive being is that, the frequent regulation proper to say reduction for breach of fiduciary responsibility is a proper that involves existence by means of the employment contract, a degree which the courtroom rightfully made:

“It’s a far cry to strategy the courtroom for frequent regulation reduction primarily based on a fiduciary responsibility arising from the contract of employment when the identical contract doesn’t have the identical consequence below Hong Kong regulation as a South African contract of employment. That creates doubt on the applicant’s entitlement to frequent regulation interdictory reduction by merely jettisoning a difficult consequence of the selection of regulation within the contract of employment.”[viii]

However, the courtroom reasoned that the choice to depend on the South African frequent regulation couldn’t quantity to an abuse of course of in mild of there being doubt as as to if the applicant would have been in a position to set up a contractual proper below Hong Kong regulation for the enforcement of the restraint of commerce clause.[ix] The safety of lawful competitors additionally appeared to necessitate a choice on the deserves.[x] Having concluded that there was no abuse of course of, the courtroom went on to make its judgment in opposition to the applicant. Plenty of causes have been made, most of which have been as a result of circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship between the applicant and respondent.[xi] In essence, the competitors arising from the actions of Integricore was discovered to be lawful, that means there was no proper from which to say interdictory reduction. The respondent’s data of the South African market was discovered to be a part of the respondent’s common ability set and never a part of the applicant’s proprietary confidential data. In different phrases, the applicant had not confirmed that there was an inexpensive apprehension of irreparable hurt, which is a component that have to be confirmed to ensure that the interdict utility to succeed. Lastly, the courtroom held that it could be unlikely to grant reduction by train of their judicial discretion as a result of contractual relationship being ruled by Hong Kong regulation.

Sure issues have been raised in respect to the dearth of a non-public worldwide regulation strategy by the Excessive Court docket on this judgment. These issues could be learn right here. Basically, the courtroom didn’t conduct a correct investigation into the selection of regulation governing the illegal competitors declare. A non-public worldwide regulation strategy would have necessitated characterising the dispute and figuring out which regulation would apply, both by utility of a battle rule or by means of the willpower of which authorized system is manifestly nearer or considerably linked to the dispute. The South African alternative of regulation rule for delictual disputes is the lex loci delicti.[xii] The courtroom, nevertheless, didn’t comply with by means of with a willpower on the selection of regulation. Nonetheless, I don’t consider that the courtroom erred of their strategy for a couple of causes. The principle concern involved the query of whether or not the applicant had met the necessities for an interdict, as in response to South African regulation. The applicant had approached the Excessive Court docket for interdictory reduction on the idea of South African frequent regulation. The courtroom scrutinized this choice in mild of the employment contract and its specific alternative of Hong Kong regulation. Removed from ignoring the relevance of international regulation, the courtroom went on to establish the content material of Hong Kong regulation in respect to restrain of commerce. The willpower of whether or not the applicant had established a prima facie proper to say interdictory reduction, in addition to whether or not the courtroom ought to grant discretionary reduction in lieu of a prima facie proper hinged on the employment contract, its alternative of Hong Kong regulation in addition to its subsequent repudiation. A willpower of the relevant regulation over the alleged illegal competitors was not mandatory to ensure that the courtroom to make its conclusion. The query of whether or not the competitors was illegal was answered by wanting on the surrounding circumstances of the employment contract and, extra particularly, the conduct of the applicant in respect to the contract. The employment contract and its alternative of regulation clause was central to the courtroom’s adjudication of the matter.

Whereas a transparent and specific non-public worldwide regulation strategy is at all times invaluable, significantly in South Africa the place non-public worldwide regulation disputes will not be typically heard, a dogmatic alternative of regulation strategy just isn’t at all times mandatory. The courtroom might in actual fact be recommended for the way it dealt with the points of international regulation which arose on this dispute. The courtroom went by means of the method of really ascertaining the place in Hong Kong regulation, highlighting the significance of specific alternative of regulation clauses inside contractual agreements. What could also be thought of a cosmopolitan strategy, akin to non-public worldwide regulation issues, ensured the courtroom thought of elements past the weather mandatory for interdictory reduction below South African regulation. The courtroom raised issues surrounding potential abuse of course of, which factored closely within the courts option to not grant discretionary reduction. The eye introduced to those issues are welcomed, significantly within the face of the relative ease that transnational employers have over the litigation course of.[xiii]

Earlier contributions:

On-line Symposium on Latest Developments in African Non-public Worldwide Regulation, by Béligh Elbalti & Chukwuma S.A. Okoli (Introductory publish)
Recognition and Enforcement of Worldwide Judgments in Nigeria, by Abubakri Yekini & Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli
The Recognition and Enforcement of Overseas Judgments inside the CEMAC Zone, by Boris Awa
Overseas Judgments in Mozambique by means of the Lens of the Enforcement of a Chinese language Judgment: Liberal Observe within the Shadow of Statutory Rigidity, by Béligh Elbalti
Occasion Autonomy, Real Connection, Comfort, Prices, Privity, and Public Coverage: The Kenyan Excessive Court docket on Unique Jurisdiction Clauses, by Anam Abdul – Majid and Kitonga Mulandi

———————————————–

[i] Placement Worldwide Group Restricted v Pretorius and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC 1252 (Placement Worldwide).

[ii] Ibid para 1-9.

[iii] Ibid para 6

[iv] See usually, Lillicrap Wassenaar and Companions v Pilkington Brothers [1985] 1 All SA 347 (A).

[v] Placement Worldwide (n1) para 33.

[vi] Ibid para 30.

[vii] For a really latest judgment on restraint of commerce clauses in South Africa see, TWK Agri (Pty) Ltd v Holtzhausen and One other [2025] ZALCJHB 252.

[viii] Placement Worldwide (n1) para 33.

[ix] Ibid para 40.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid para 42 – 50.

[xii] See Burchell v Anglin 2010 3 SA 48 (ECG) and Apleni v African Course of Options (Pty) Ltd and One other (15211/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 160.

[xiii] See usually, Rinaldi E ‘A comparative evaluation of the obligatory rule doctrine and its utility within the South African Labour Court docket’ (2021) 15 Pretoria Pupil Regulation Evaluate.