If you write and post things on
the ever present social or business websites it might come back at you to bite
you. Caveat subscriptor – beware you
signed something; or nowadays I shall rephrase tha to mean: “beware what you
write on social and/or business websites such as Linked-In.”
This case is about old friends
that I have discussed earlier on – the one’s name “restraint of trade” and the
other is “confidentiality agreements.” I venture to say that most high flyer
businessmen are acutely aware of these these two friends. Well – I am not going
to repeat the terms and conditions of these friends suffice it to state that
they vary slightly in each agreement, but in essence are of the same calibre.
And the strange phenomenon is
that the is a marked resemblance in the defences put up by guys who are
defending their breaches. In the instant matter the learned judge had this to
say about the defence of Haynes: “In my view this attempt by the first
respondent to bolster his case was both reckless and opportunistic, and
demonstrates a mendacity on his part which validly heightens the applicant’s
concerns and its need for the relief sought in this matter.” And if you have
regard to the meaning of the word “mendacity” you will notice that the judge
was not overtly impressed with the honesty of Haynes. Mendacity means the act
of not telling the truth. Eish!
Now can you guess the outcome of
this matter? Yes – he lost it and the
court granted an interdict against the respondents for breaching the restraint
and confidentiality.
What was however very interesting in this matter is the role Haynes’ profile he created in Linked-In played in this matter. Haynes dug his own hole and was kept there by the court. “One only has to have regard to his Curriculum Vitae which appears in his Linked-In profile to conclude that first respondent was a senior employee who was steeped in the business of the applicant and was privy to and possessed of its confidential information and customer connections.”
See: Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes and Another (48711/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 105 (18 May 2012)
0 comments:
Post a Comment