Clementz v Millbo Paper CC and Others (27096/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 43; [2021] 2 All SA 774 (GJ); [2021] 7 BLLR 728 (GJ); 2021 (4) SA 186 (GJ) ; (2021) 42 ILJ 1796 (GJ) (19 March 2021)

Clementz v Millbo Paper CC and Others (27096/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 43; [2021] 2 All SA 774 (GJ); [2021] 7 BLLR 728 (GJ); 2021 (4) SA 186 (GJ) ; (2021) 42 ILJ 1796 (GJ) (19 March 2021)

The court held that, given the absence of a bright-line test and the need to consider policy and factual nuances, it cannot be determined on exception that the plaintiff's claim is bad in law. The pleaded facts, accepted as correct, do not conclusively establish that the injury arose out of employment for purposes of statutory exclusion. The conduct of intoxicated senior management raises policy questions and factual complexities that require evidence at trial. The court found that upholding the exception would risk injustice and that the matter should proceed to trial for a full determination. Accordingly, the exceptions are dismissed and costs are reserved for the trial court.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 43
Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Clementz; Defendant: Millbo Paper CC; Defendant: Greenbat (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Ronald Prinsloo; Defendant: Shane Robin Eric Isaacs; Defendant: David Melville Griffiths
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Case Number
27096/2019
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception Raised by First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants; Decided on Pleadings Without Trial Evidence
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed; costs reserved for trial court.
Judges
Gilbert
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Exclusion of Common Law Claims, Negligence, Statutory Interpretation, Exception Procedure, Workplace Safety
Delict Labour Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Occupational Injuries Exclusion of Common Law Claims Negligence Statutory Interpretation Exception Procedure +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Clementz

Plaintiff

Millbo Paper CC

Defendant

Greenbat (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Ronald Prinsloo

Defendant

Shane Robin Eric Isaacs

Defendant

David Melville Griffiths

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception Raised by First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants; Decided on Pleadings Without Trial Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's workplace injury arose out of his employment within the meaning of 'accident' under section 1 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993.
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts, accepted as correct for purposes of exception, exclude the plaintiff's common law claim for damages under section 35 of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of intoxicated senior management causing the injury takes the incident outside the statutory exclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the absence of a bright-line test and the need to consider policy and factual nuances, it cannot be determined on exception that the plaintiff's claim is bad in law. The pleaded facts, accepted as correct, do not conclusively establish that the injury arose out of employment for purposes of statutory exclusion. The conduct of intoxicated senior management raises policy questions and factual complexities that require evidence at trial. The court found that upholding the exception would risk injustice and that the matter should proceed to trial for a full determination. Accordingly, the exceptions are dismissed and costs are reserved for the trial court.

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed; costs reserved for trial court.

Orders

  • The first, fourth and fifth defendants’ exceptions are dismissed.
  • The costs of the exceptions are reserved for determination by the trial court.