Both parties in a High Court matter brought by Airlink against SAA have released a statement on the outcome.
SAA said it welcomed the order by the High Court in Johannesburg. It released a statement, which reads: “Judge Unterhalter’s order was by mutual agreement of the parties without any admission of guilt on the part of the respondents. It orders the removal of the matter from the urgent court roll to be dealt with by the ordinary courts.
“Airlink had alleged that a valued SAA staff member who resigned from Airlink in September 2023 and rejoined SAA had shared commercially sensitive information with SAA.
“The court order provides that, while a court date is awaited, SAA accedes to destroy any alleged commercially sensitive information. SAA contends that it does not need information from any other airline to run its operations and that the information Airlink claims to have proprietary rights to, is generally available on airline industry platforms.
“The order contains an explicit declaration that, ‘The Twelfth Respondent [SAA] does not concede that Airlink is entitled to such relief.’
“‘SAA is pleased with the conclusion of this matter. In the event that Airlink elects to take the matter further, SAA will vigorously defend its case. It is unfortunate that certain media reports bordered on a campaign of defamation against SAA,’ said SAA’s interim CEO, Professor John Lamola.”
Lamola added: “As a responsible national flag carrier with an interest to promote a vibrant and competitive South African airline industry, SAA is pursuing its internal processes in dealing with all aspects of Airlink’s allegations. These processes are now subject to the sub judice rule, as the matter is being litigated in court.”
Airlink released a comment from its CEO and MD, Rodger Foster. It reads: “Airlink is satisfied with the Court outcome this week and the relief it provides with the order that SAA must delete, destroy and not use any of Airlink’s intellectual property in any way. The outcome also confirms the seriousness and validity of our case against Mrs Da Silva, SAA and the other respondents.”
