The objective of the thesis is to analyse law, case law, recommendations and opinions and to some extent legal doctrine to produce commercially viable advice (in other words, a check-list) on what to think about when conducting a balancing test as of GDPR Article 6.1 (f)

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / The study critically analyses the concurrent enforceability of restraint of trade and garden leave in South African Labour law. The study seeks to answer the question of whether or not the simultaneous enforceability of restraint of trade agreements and garden leave is reasonable. Designed within a qualitative paradigm primarily based on a critical literature review, the study employs a doctrinal approach to establish the contemporary legal position in respect of the simultaneous enforceability of restraint of trade agreements and garden leave in South African Labour law. The objectives pursued by the study are to mitigate the controversies and clear the confusion relating to the enforceability of restraint of trade agreements; to justify the doctrine of restraint of trade; assess the reasonableness of the simultaneous enforceability of garden leave and restraint of trade; examine the onus of proof in matters dealing with the enforceability of restraint of trade agreements; test the constitutionality of restraint of trade agreements; evaluate the relationship between restraint of trade agreements and garden leave; and propose practical recommendations that can be employed to address identified legal flaws in the context of the topic. Structurally, the study begins with unpacking the background to the research topic, the history, origin and rationality of restraint of trade agreements together with an assessment of their enforceability. It further examines the effect of garden leave on restraint of trade agreements, outlines comparative perspectives on restraint of trade, including aspects relating to garden leave and highlights lessons South Africa may learn from the selected jurisdictions. Finally, the study recommends that South African jurisprudence should be developed to shift the burden of proof to employers to prove reasonableness of garden leave and restraint of trade agreements, to impose an obligation on employers to pay former employees for rendering them jobless and to set a maximum period that an employee can be prevented to compete or be employed by employer’s competitors. / NRF

Dans notre monde actuel, les entreprises utilisent, pour se prémunir de toute atteinte et protéger au maximum leurs intérêts économiques, des techniques contractuelles élaborées par la pratique telles que les clauses de non-concurrence, les clauses de confidentialité, les clauses de non-réaffiliation et les clauses de non sollicitation.Ces clauses occupent de multiples champs de l’activité contractuelle en mêlant le droit des contrats, le droit des affaires et le droit du travail. Elles visent à interdire au cocontractant, d’exercer une activité professionnelle, de divulguer des informations secrètes, ou encore d’embaucher certains collaborateurs. Ainsi, elles viennent limiter une liberté fondamentale, plus spécialement la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie. Dès lors, il semble nécessaire d’élaborer un régime juridique commun à toutes ces clauses afin de préserver d’un coté la protection de l’activité économique des entreprises et de l’autre la sauvegarde de la liberté économique des contractants soumis à de telles clauses. L’intérêt d’un régime commun est d’anticiper les conditions de validité et de mise en œuvre des ce type de clauses. De cette façon, la prévisibilité ne ferait plus défaut aux contractants. L’élaboration de ce droit commun passe par deux étapes. La première est relative à l’identification des clauses limitatives de concurrence. Il s’agit de saisir leur autonomie par rapport aux contrats dans lesquels elles peuvent être insérées et d’en tirer les conséquences au niveau leur validité. La seconde est relative à la mise en œuvre de ces clauses. Leur application est délicate car dépendante pour une grande partie de la précision de leur contenu. En cas de non-respect, un vaste choix de remèdes est offert au contractant déçu pour venir sanctionner le manquement contractuel constaté. / In the modern world, to guard themselves from damage and to protect at best their economical interests, companies use contractual techniques developed by usage such as non-compete clauses,confidentiality clauses, non-reaffiliation clauses and non-solicitation clauses. These clauses cover many fields of contractual legality, mixing contract law, labor law and business law. Their aim is to prohibit the co-contractor to practice a professional activity, to disclose secret information, or even to employ specific colleagues, or contributors. Thus, they are brought to restrict a fundamental freedom, specifically the freedom of trade and of industry. As a result, it appears necessary to formulate a common legal system for all these clauses so as to preserve on one side the protection of the economic activity of the companies et on the other side the safeguard of the economic freedom of the co-contractors subject to these clauses. The benefit of a common legal system is the anticipation of the conditions of validity and implementation of this type of clause. In this way, the cocontractants will not lack in foresight. The development of this common right is in two steps. This includes confirming their autonomy relative to the contracts in which they may be inserted and draw the necessary conclusions regarding their validity. The second step is relative to the implementation of these clauses. Their application is sensitive because it depends for the most part on the precision of their content. In case of a breach of contract, a large array of legal remedies is available to the aggrieved contractor to penalize the breach of contract.