Latest news with #legalvictory
The Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- The Herald
Gqeberha family lawyer wins battle against big law firm
In a classic David-and-Goliath courtroom battle, a sole practitioner from Gqeberha has successfully defeated a prominent law firm that attempted to enforce a restraint of trade clause against her. The court ruling has been widely praised by young attorneys at large legal firms, who see it as a significant victory for professional freedom. Family lawyer Lizette Ferns breathed a sigh of relief last week after the Gqeberha high court dismissed an application by Kaplan Blumberg Attorneys, which sought to prevent her from engaging clients who approached her after she left the firm. However, the legal battle may be far from over, as Kaplan Blumberg partner Chris Unwin said the firm would probably appeal against the court's judgment. If that happens, Ferns may have to put dealing with old clients on ice until the appeal process has been finalised. The matter dates back to 2012 when Ferns was appointed at Kaplan Blumberg and signed her initial employment contract, which contained a restraint of trade clause. The next year she was promoted to head up Kaplan's family law department. In 2017, while still running the department, she was promoted to salaried partner and the firm presented her with a new contract. However, Ferns refused to sign the contract, mainly because she disagreed with the inclusion of a restraint of trade provision. Despite not signing the contract, her duties as a salaried partner within the family law department continued. Further contracts, detailing the terms and responsibilities of employment, followed in 2021 and 2024. However, Ferns still contested the inclusion of a restraint of trade clause. Over time, the relationship between employer and employee soured, and on March 5, Ferns resigned with immediate effect. In a letter to Kaplan Blumberg, Ferns stated her intention to notify clients of her departure from the firm. Anticipating that the firm might attempt to enforce the restraint of trade clause in her original employment contract, Ferns made it clear she would challenge such enforcement and seek relief through the labour court if necessary. In the same letter, she also indicated that she would represent one of the firm's clients the following day to assist him to postpone a court matter, and to inform him that she was leaving the firm. 'It is this conduct coupled with the assertion that the respondent [Ferns] does not regard the restraint of trade provision to be enforceable that prompted the launch of this application,' the judgment reads . After her resignation, some of Kaplan's clients sought to terminate the firm's mandate because they wanted to follow Ferns and her new firm. In the application, Kaplan wanted the court to declare the restraint provisions of Ferns' 2012 contract as binding, interdict her for 12 months from inducing Kaplan employees to terminate their employment, and interdict her from soliciting, canvassing or conducting business with Kaplan clients. Judge Nozuko Mjali said at the heart of the matter was the determination of the existence or otherwise of a restraint of trade provision. 'On the facts of this matter certainty is essential to both applicant and the respondent so that they can carry on with their businesses,' she said. While the judge agreed that the matter was urgent, she said with it being an application for a final interdict, the next hurdle for Kaplan Blumberg was to prove the existence of the real right that it sought to protect. 'This approach is also in line with the one that is followed in restraint of trade cases, namely that the employer who seeks to enforce a restraint against an employee must prove the existence of the restraint obligation against the employee.' Mjali said it was not in dispute that when Ferns was promoted from candidate attorney, up the ranks to salaried partner, she did not sign the new contract. She said the contract Kaplan Blumberg relied on in its application no longer regulated the employment relationship with Ferns. 'Thus, there is no basis for the application. The application falls to be dismissed.' Mjali further ordered Kaplan Blumberg to pay the costs of the court action. Unwin said his firm was still studying the judgment. 'We respectfully disagree with the court's decision.' He said once the appeal was filed, the judgment would be suspended pending the outcome of the process. Ferns, on the other hand, was happy with the outcome. 'The court's decision is a great relief for me, and I am grateful for the conclusion it reached. Now I can focus on the future and continue to build my firm.' She said while the court proceedings were ongoing she had signed new clients and believed some of her old clients would seek her out. Several other Bay attorneys working at top law firms also praised the judgment. 'I did not sign a restraint of trade but this is good news for many attorneys in similar positions,' one said. The Herald
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawrence O'Donnell Makes Bold Prediction For 'Irreversibly Stupid' Trump's Next Big Loss
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Thursday predicted that President Donald Trump's legal victory earlier in the day would be a short-lived one. A federal trade court this week blocked Trump's sweeping tariffs, but an appeals court on Thursday issued a stay as it considers the president's case. O'Donnell said the only reason the court granted that stay was because Trump's attorneys guaranteed that the government would issue refunds to anyone who paid tariffs should they lose the case. Without that promise, O'Donnell said, it's 'very unlikely' the court would have granted the stay. He also noted that the Treasury Department knows how to issue refunds, since they do it every year at tax time ― and said they'll be doing it again, and soon, when the next ruling goes against Trump and those tariff refunds must be issued. 'Refund day is coming, and it will be the most humiliating day Donald Trump will suffer in his losing trade war,' O'Donnell said. Trump fired off a message on his Truth Social website attacking the trade court that had ruled against him, but O'Donnell said that's more proof the president doesn't understand the Constitution. 'Donald Trump humiliated himself once again by showing how irreversibly stupid and flawlessly ignorant he is of the actual words of the Constitution and their meaning,' he said, adding that Trump's social media post in response to the initial legal ruling revealed 'severe mental weakness.' See his full explanation below:
Bloomberg
22-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
FTC Nixes Antitrust Lawsuit Against PepsiCo Over Pricing
PepsiCo Inc. scored a major legal victory Thursday after the three members of the US Federal Trade Commission voted unanimously to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit that was filed at the very end of the Biden Administration. The FTC sued Pepsi on January 17, with the commissioners voting along partisan lines to use a rarely invoked 1930s law called the Robinson-Patman Act that bars price discrimination against retailers.
