Burnett v Nampak Cartons and Labels KZN (D998/10) [2016] ZALCD 18 (10 June 2016)

Burnett v Nampak Cartons and Labels KZN (D998/10) [2016] ZALCD 18 (10 June 2016)

The court found that the applicant and respondent had concluded a binding voluntary retrenchment agreement, which was documented and signed by both parties. The evidence established that the issue of a restraint of trade was never discussed during negotiations and was only raised after the agreement had been reached. The applicant's contract did not contain a restraint clause, and there was no legal or contractual obligation for the applicant to disclose his future employment plans. The respondent's attempt to impose a restraint after the fact was a breach of the agreement. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to resile from the retrenchment agreement or to make payment of...

Citation
[2016] ZALCD 18
Parties
Applicant: Roger Burnett; Respondent: Nampak Cartons and Labels KZN, a division of Nampak Products Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Case Number
D998/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Voluntary Retrenchment, Breach of Contract, Restraint of Trade, Severance Package
Labour Law Civil Procedure Voluntary Retrenchment Breach of Contract Restraint of Trade Severance Package

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Burnett

Applicant

Nampak Cartons and Labels KZN, a division of Nampak Products Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent agreed to retrench the applicant on 1 February 2010 or at all.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled in law to resile from the retrenchment agreement because the applicant failed to disclose possible employment with Golden Era Packaging or refused to sign a restraint of trade agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent in fact resiled from the retrenchment agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and respondent had concluded a binding voluntary retrenchment agreement, which was documented and signed by both parties. The evidence established that the issue of a restraint of trade was never discussed during negotiations and was only raised after the agreement had been reached. The applicant's contract did not contain a restraint clause, and there was no legal or contractual obligation for the applicant to disclose his future employment plans. The respondent's attempt to impose a restraint after the fact was a breach of the agreement. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to resile from the retrenchment agreement or to make payment of...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of R466,796.55 together with interest thereon from 5 February 2010.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.