In Strydom v Castro, the Labour Court was asked to enforce a restraint of trade clause within an employment contract — a classic legal battleground where personal freedom to trade must be balanced against contractual obligations and legitimate business interests.
The case illustrates the pitfalls of overbroad drafting and serves as a cautionary tale for employers who attempt to insulate their business from competition without due consideration of proportionality, relevance, and fairness.
Background
Dr Strydom, a general practitioner at Strydom Medi Centre in Mulbarton, employed Dr Castro from May 2021 until her resignation in April 2025. Their employment agreement included a restraint of trade and confidentiality clause – typical for professional services, particularly in medicine where client relationships and trust are paramount.
Clause 13 of the contract was central to the dispute. It dealt with both confidentiality and restraint of trade. Two key sub-clauses stood out:
Clause 13.2.5: Prohibited Dr Castro from engaging with Strydom’s patients for one year after termination.
Clause 13.2.6: Barred Dr Castro from operating a medical practice within a 10 km radius of Strydom Medi Centre for three years.
Upon her resignation, Dr Castro reaffirmed these commitments in a signed undertaking. However, shortly after leaving, she established a new practice, just 3.8 km from Strydom Medi Centre, triggering the application by Dr Strydom under Rule 39 of the Labour Court Rules to enforce the restraint.
Arguments Before the Court
Dr Castro contended that:
The restraint clauses were drafted too broadly and lacked tailoring to her role or Strydom’s specific business needs.
The three-year geographic restraint was excessive and aimed not at protecting legitimate interests, but rather at eliminating competition.
The clause was linked primarily to confidentiality and lacked a standalone, enforceable basis.
Dr Strydom argued that:
The restraint sought to protect a legitimate business interest: the patient relationships built up over four years.
Dr Castro had seen approximately 30 patients daily, giving her access to a substantial portion of Strydom’s client base.
The proximity and pricing model of Castro’s new practice posed a real and direct threat to his practice.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The court recognised that restraint of trade clauses are enforceable provided they protect a legitimate interest and are reasonable in scope and duration.
Key findings included:
The restraint provisions were clearly severable. Though found under a clause titled “Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest”, the court accepted that sub-clauses 13.2.5 and 13.2.6 were enforceable in their own right.
The public interest favours the enforcement of valid contracts, but must be balanced against the constitutional right to choose one’s trade or occupation freely.
While Dr Strydom’s interest in preserving patient relationships was legitimate, a three-year geographic restriction was deemed excessive and anti-competitive.
The one-year prohibition on engaging with clients was reasonable and enforceable.
Dr Castro’s justifications — such as proximity to her children’s school and offering more affordable services — did not outweigh the need to enforce the restraint within reasonable bounds.
Outcome
The Court struck a balance by upholding the restraint, but limiting its duration:
Dr Castro is interdicted from owning or working in a medical practice within a 10 km radius of Strydom Medi Centre from 1 May 2025 to 1 May 2026.
She is specifically barred from operating Castro Smith Medical Suites at its current location for the same period.
Significance of the Case
This decision reinforces several core principles in restraint of trade jurisprudence:
Contracts Must Be Tailored: Employers cannot simply copy generic restraint clauses. The context — including the nature of the business, the employee’s role, and the competitive landscape — matters greatly.
Legitimate Interest Is Key: Protecting client relationships is valid, but employers must prove the restraint is necessary and not aimed solely at avoiding competition.
Proportionality Is Crucial: Courts will not enforce clauses that are overly broad or punitive. Restrictions must be no wider than necessary to protect legitimate interests.
Severability Saves Contracts: Poor heading or clause structure won’t necessarily invalidate restraint provisions if they are otherwise clear and reasonable.
Conclusion
The Strydom v Castro ruling underscores the importance of reasonableness and precision in drafting restraint of trade agreements. For professionals and employers alike, it’s a reminder that while the law protects proprietary interests, it also guards against overreach that stifles fair competition and individual freedom.
This case offers valuable guidance on how courts will approach such disputes — not just in the healthcare sector, but across all industries where personal services and client relationships are central to business success.
Contact Danel Campbell Attorneys for compassionate, experienced legal assistance.
info@danelcampbell.co.za
Pretoria | Serving clients across South Africa
Company Registration Number: 2021/996718/21 | Firm Number: 68449 | Fidelity Fund Certificate number: FFC02423/2025
Designed by © Web Design Pretoria – Foxx Design and Hosted By Hosting South Africa – Gotweb. All rights reserved 2025. Legal & Privacy