This image was downloaded from Huffington Post UK
Friday 31 May 2013
Oscar Pistorius: gruesome pictures
Tuesday 28 May 2013
Bloodnose for the National Prosecuting Authority
Tuesday 21 May 2013
Accused/suspects: not enough evidence
Thursday 16 May 2013
Wednesday 15 May 2013
Go, visit a court and sit, listen and observe - any court.
Have you ever sat in a
court to listen and to see what is going on there? If not, why not? Or do you
do as so many others do? Watch the dramatic stuff on TV? I am not referring to
movies – I am referring to real murder trials such as the one about the murder
of Eugene Terre’blanché.
I strongly recommend
that you should visit a court soon.
Just the other day a
person said to me that he often wondered whether he would be allowed to go in
and just sit and listen. It is open to the public – except when it is held in camera for instance when a minor is
on trial.
My mom visited a court
the first time in her life when I was a state prosecutor – well, that takes me
back many years. She said to me when she came out: “Boet, dit is mos maar
lawaaierig daarbinne.” She was so taken aback when people kept coming in and
going out. Her concept of the procedures inside there changed drastically.
Just go, enter the
courtroom and sit and observe. And then tell me.
Tuesday 14 May 2013
“Beware what you write on social and/or business websites such as Linked-In.”
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.”
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.”
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
