GNG Marketing vs. De Beer: Court Enforces Restraint of Trade

Background

Frederik Pieter Jeremia De Beer worked for GNG Marketing and Distribution CC for nearly 18 years, managing the Polokwane depot. Before retiring at the end of February 2026, he signed a restraint‑of‑trade agreement that barred him from:

• Competing with GNG Marketing
• Soliciting its customers
• Sharing confidential information for two years after leaving

What Happened After Retirement?

• De Beer’s sons started a new coffin and casket business called DB Caskets and Domes (Pty) Ltd.
• GNG Marketing alleged De Beer helped set up this rival, using his long‑standing customer contacts and internal data.
• Customers told management that De Beer mentioned plans to launch his own funeral‑industry venture after retirement.

Suspicious Email Activity

• In December 2025, shortly before his departure, De Beer emailed a detailed spreadsheet containing 18 years of sales figures, banking records, and customer information from his work account to his personal account.
• He then deleted the email from both Sent and Deleted folders, an attempt to hide the transfer.

GNG Marketing’s Response

The company first tried to resolve the issue informally:

• Sent formal notices and asked for undertakings.
• When those efforts failed, GNG Marketing filed an urgent application with the employment tribunal.

Court’s Findings

Transfer of the Restraint Agreement

• The original contract was with GNG Pine Products CC.
• When the business was transferred to GNG Marketing in 2013 under Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act (as a going concern), the restraint automatically moved with the employment relationship.
• Judge Sean Snyman rejected De Beer’s argument that the agreement no longer applied.

Evidence of Involvement

• Business registration: DB Caskets was registered at De Beer’s home address.
• Premises: The company operated from property he provided.
• Marketing: Online ads claimed “over 18 years’ experience in the funeral industry,” a reference only De Beer could fulfil.
• Trade‑show presence: Photos showed De Beer staffing the DB Caskets stand and talking to potential clients.
• Customer meetings: He met prospects on GNG premises and assisted in the new venture’s operations.
• Data transfer: He forwarded confidential customer information to his personal email shortly after being told of his retirement, despite claiming it was for operational reasons only.

Protectable Interests

• The court agreed GNG Marketing had legitimate interests in:

  1. Confidential business information (sales data, customer lists).
  2. Long‑term customer relationships built over almost two decades.
• There was a real risk that De Beer’s knowledge and contacts would give DB Caskets an unfair advantage.

Adjusting the Restraint

While the original agreement imposed a two‑year nationwide ban, Judge Snyman found it broader than needed. He narrowed the restriction to:

• Geographic scope: Limpopo and Botswana only.
• Duration: One year from February 2026.
• Prohibited activities:
  • Direct or indirect manufacture or sale of coffins, caskets, and domes.
  • Soliciting GNG Marketing clients or helping others do so.
  • Disclosing any confidential information to third parties, including DB Caskets.

Costs and Final Remarks

• De Beer was ordered to pay GNG Marketing’s legal costs.
• Judge Snyman noted that several of De Beer’s statements were unconvincing and that his repeated denials of involvement were contradicted by the evidence.

Conclusion

The employment tribunal upheld the importance of protecting a company’s confidential information and customer relationships. Although the original restraint was deemed excessive, the court imposed a reasonable, limited ban that allows De Beer to earn a living while safeguarding GNG Marketing’s legitimate business interests. The case highlights how former employees must respect post‑employment agreements, especially when they possess valuable insider knowledge and client contacts.