Danielle de Bruyn won a legal battle to remain with her current employer, adidas, after her former employer, Truworths, took them to the high court. Picture: African News Agency (ANA) Danielle de Bruyn won a legal battle to remain with her current employer, adidas, after her former employer, Truworths, took them to the high court. Picture: African News Agency (ANA)
Durban – A Durban fashionista caught in an employment battle between two trendy retail giants walked out of court
victorious this week.
Danielle de Bruyn, 27, who
studied fashion design and textiles at the Durban University of Technology (DUT) was taken to court by Truworths
Limited for breaching a restraint of trade agreement.
De Bruyn, formerly from Kloof but now living in Sea Point, Cape Town, was employed by Truworths as a buyer. She left the company in January to join adidas (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The terms of her employment was that if she resigned from Truworths, she could not work for a competitor for up to six months.
This week, Judge Ashley Binns-Ward of the Western Cape High Court, dismissed Truworths’ application against adidas and De Bruyn who they alleged had breached one of her contractual agreements.
In founding affidavits, Truworths alleged that during her time as an employee, De Bruyn was “exposed to highly confidential and commercially sensitive information” and signed a restraint agreement at the time of
hiring in 2014.
It stipulated that should her employment be terminated, she could not work for any competitors in South Africa for a period of seven months.
But during her first year with the company, amendments were made.
The first was concluded on
February 18, 2015, and the second
was executed a few days later.
De Bruyn was then given an
option to provide three months
notice before terminating her employment with the seven-month restraint of trade or four months notice
with a six-month restraint. She chose the latter.
De Bruyn worked as a buyer, tracking international fashion trends and then either designed or identified designs to manufacture merchandise for the local market. She was also expected to know what would sell, what should be ordered, and quantities of stock in various styles and sizes.
She graduated from DUT in 2013 and was employed by Truworths in 2014 as a trainee buyer.
She underwent a two-year period of in-house training before being promoted to a designate buyer.
Her last working day with
Truworths was January 17 and she joined adidas on February 17.
In his judgement, Judge Binns-
Ward said Truworths sought to obtain an order enforcing the restraint of trade agreement.
“The company contended De Bruyn’s employment with adidas breached the restraint. The matter was heard on February 20.
“Webber Wentzel attorneys opposed the interdict on behalf of adidas and De Bruyn. Their answer
to the founding papers was given
in an affidavit by adidas’s senior
director. De Bruyn also submitted an affidavit.”
Judge Binns-Ward said adidas opposed the interdict on the point that Truworth’s application had been “unduly delayed” as they were aware from December that De Bruyn had been offered the adidas job.
“It would appear that adidas
headhunted De Bruyn after accessing her profile on the business networking site LinkedIn. She did not hide the offer and had been advised by
Truworths personnel that she would be in breach of the restraint should she take the job before the restraint period elapsed.”
At that stage, De Bruyn’s first
preference was to emigrate to Portugal, where her partner had been offered an attractive business opportunity.
But emigrating proved to be too complicated and for that reason, she accepted adidas’s offer.
“Having learned of De Bruyn’s decision, Truworths sought that
the restraint would be honoured. De Bruyn and adidas requested and were granted extra time to react to the demand. It was only when the demand was refused that legal action was instituted.”
Judge Binns-Ward did not
consider Truworths’s protectable
interests threatened by De Bruyn’s employment with adidas as she worked with a different work model.
“I hold that it would be unreasonable in the peculiar circumstances for the restraint agreement to be enforced. The application is dismissed with
costs, including the fees of two counsel.”
De Bruyn refused to comment. Media relations manager for adidas, Mandy Nieber, also chose not to comment and Truworths had not responded at the time of publication.