What would you do if a senior employee resigned on Friday and was competing with you by the following week?
In just 11 days, a resignation turned into direct competition, raising a familiar yet uncomfortable question for employers: What protection exists when there is no restraint of trade clause?
Dispro Tech SA (Pty) Ltd v Soot Science (Pty) Ltd (5063/2025) [2026] ZANWHC 99 (8 April 2026) tells the story of two senior employees who resigned from a specialist emissions-testing company and incorporated a competing business 11 days later. They took with them the employer’s proprietary software, business methodology, and client connections, and used them to launch a direct competitor without making any independent investment in time, resources, or expertise. This is what is coined as “springboarding”.
The springboard doctrine holds that a departing employee may not use the fruits of an employer’s labour as a launching pad for a competing business. The unfairness is not in the competition itself. It lies in the head start the employee gains at the employer’s expense. In Dispro Tech, the court found it simply inconceivable that a fully operational competing business could have been established within 11 days of resignation without using the employer’s confidential information. The evidence before the court bore this out. The proposals presented to the employer’s clients were virtually identical to those of the employers. The respondents had purchased equipment from the employer’s exclusive supplier; in direct breach of an agreement, they had themselves signed on the employer's behalf. One of them had emailed the employer’s proprietary software to himself weeks before resigning.
What makes this judgment particularly significant for employers is the court’s treatment of the third respondent, who had no written employment contract. The court found that a former employee's fiduciary duties arose from the nature of his role and his access to confidential information and client relationships. The court found that the third respondent remained bound by those duties even after leaving the applicant’s employment.
The court also confirmed that the springboard doctrine is not limited to information that remains strictly confidential. Relying on Schultz v Butt 1986 (3) SA 667 (A), the court noted that even where information has entered the public domain, using it to avoid independent investment may still constitute unlawful competition. The doctrine is wider than a confidentiality claim and should be treated as such.
Needless to say, costs were awarded on an attorney and client scale against the former employees, the respondents herein. The respondents had stated in writing to the employer that they were unlikely to take any fiduciary claims seriously. The court described the respondents' conduct as reprehensible and was not prepared to leave the employer out of pocket for it.
The practical lessons for employers are clear. Restraint of trade agreements remain important, but they are not the only line of defence. Senior employees or any other employees, for that matter, who have access to confidential information, client relationships, and proprietary systems, owe fiduciary duties that the law will enforce even without a written agreement. As a practical measure, Employers should document what confidential information employees have access to, monitor unusual activity in the period leading up to resignation, act quickly when the signs of springboarding appear, and approach the court for an interdict where the evidence supports it.
The relief available, as this judgment shows, is substantial: an interdict, the return and destruction of confidential information, a restraint on competition for eighteen months, and a punitive costs order.
The speed at which the respondents moved in Dispro Tech is also important to note. Eleven days from resignation to incorporation. Weeks from incorporation to approaching the employer’s clients. Employers who wait for certainty before acting risk losing effective protection against unfair competitive advantage gained through springboarding conduct.
This case shows that the answer lies not only in contractual restraints, but in the broader fiduciary and common-law duties that continue to protect an employer long after an employee has walked out the door.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).