Erens and Another v EnValue AG (Pty) Ltd (JS 285/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 118 (17 March 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZALCJHB 118
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- JS 285/14
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- JS 285/14
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent was properly served with the statement of claim and failed to file any opposition. The applicants' version was unchallenged and credible. The respondent's failure to pay salaries, accrued leave, notice pay, and other allowances constituted a breach and repudiation of the employment contracts. The applicants were entitled to damages as calculated and set out in the order. The court granted default judgment in favour of the applicants.
Court disposition
Default judgment granted in favour of the applicants for breach of employment contracts.
Orders
- The respondent is in breach of the employment contracts of the applicants.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the first applicant R603,119.51, comprising September 2013 salary, salary for 1–11 October 2013, accrued leave, notice pay, and interest.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the second applicant R464,667.18, comprising September 2013 salary, salary for 1–11 October 2013, accrued leave, and notice pay.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Dylan Erens
Applicant Counsel: Q. HornMyles Peter Rennie
Applicant Counsel: Q. HornEnValue AG (Pty) Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- First Applicant Total Award: ZAR 603,119.51
- First Applicant September 2013 Salary: ZAR 113,259.5
- First Applicant Salary 1–11 October 2013: ZAR 47,645.53
- First Applicant Accrued Leave: ZAR 103,035.98
- First Applicant Notice Pay: ZAR 339,778.5
- Second Applicant Total Award: ZAR 464,667.18
- Second Applicant September 2013 Salary: ZAR 86,509.5
- Second Applicant Salary 1–11 October 2013: ZAR 35,934.16
- Second Applicant Accrued Leave: ZAR 78,700.6
- Second Applicant Notice Pay: ZAR 259,528.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment / Judgment Delivered After Respondent Failed to File Statement of Opposition.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent breached the employment contracts by failing to pay salaries and other entitlements.
- 02
Whether the applicants are entitled to damages for the respondent's repudiation of their employment contracts.
- 03
Whether default judgment should be granted in the absence of opposition.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the respondent failed to pay their monthly salaries, short-paid them in certain instances, and did not pay accrued leave, notice pay, travelling allowances, cellphone allowances, and IT allowances. They contended that this constituted repudiation of their employment contracts and sought damages accordingly. They further submitted that the respondent was properly served but failed to file any opposition, justifying a default judgment.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not appear and filed no statement of opposition. No arguments were presented.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court Rules
Where a party fails to file a statement of opposition after proper service, the court may grant default judgment if the applicant's version is unchallenged and credible.
- 02
SA Labour Law: Breach of Contract
Repudiation of an employment contract occurs when an employer fails to fulfil its contractual obligations, entitling the employee to claim damages.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent was properly served with the statement of claim and failed to file any opposition. The applicants' version was unchallenged and credible. The respondent's failure to pay salaries, accrued leave, notice pay, and other allowances constituted a breach and repudiation of the employment contracts. The applicants were entitled to damages as calculated and set out in the order. The court granted default judgment in favour of the applicants.
Obiter and limits
- In the absence of any challenge to the applicants' version, the court is entitled to accept their evidence as true.
- Proper service and expiry of the dies for filing opposition are sufficient grounds for considering default judgment.
Court disposition
Default judgment granted in favour of the applicants for breach of employment contracts.
- The respondent is in breach of the employment contracts of the applicants.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the first applicant R603,119.51, comprising September 2013 salary, salary for 1–11 October 2013, accrued leave, notice pay, and interest.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the second applicant R464,667.18, comprising September 2013 salary, salary for 1–11 October 2013, accrued leave, and notice pay.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT,
JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JS 285/14
DATE: 17 MARCH 2015
Not Reportable
In the matter between
DYLAN ERENS...............................................................................................................First Applicant
MYLES PETER RENNIE...........................................................................................Second Applicant
And
EnVALUE AG (PTY) LTD....................................................................................................Respondent
Heard:10 March 2015
Delivered: 17 March 2015
MOLAHLEHI J
[1] The applicants who prior to the termination of their employment contracts were employed by the respondent alleged that the respondent was in breach of their contracts in that it failed to pay them their monthly salaries including in certain instances short-paying them. This the applicants accepted as the repudiation of their employment contracts by the respondent and it is for that reason that they are claiming damages.
[2] The applicant’s claims are based on failure to pay their salaries for certain months, payment of accrued leave, notice pay, travelling allowances, cellphone allowances and IT allowances.
[3] The breakdown of the amount due and owing to the applicants are set out in the order made at the end of this judgment.
[4] The applicants contend that despite proper service, the respondent has failed to file its statement of opposition to their statement of claim. The dies for filing the statement of defence have expired. It is on this basis that they are seeking a default judgment.
[5] I am satisfied that there has been proper service of the statement of claim on the respondent and therefore I see no reason why the applicants claims should not be considered. In addition in the absence of opposition and challenge to the version presented by the applicants in their statement of claim I see no reason why their version should not be believed.
Order
[6] In the premises the following order is made:
1. The Respondent is in breach of the employment contracts of the applicants.
2. The Respondent is ordered to pay the applicants amounts due and owing the applicants to them in the following terms:
2.1 For the first applicant
2.1.1 A total amount of: R603 119.51 which amount is calculated as follows:
i. September 2013 salary: R113 259.50
ii. Period 1 to 11 October 2013: R47 645.53
iii. Leave days due R103.035.98
iv. Notice Pay: R339 778.50
v. Interest in the above amount.
2.2 For the Second Applicant
2.2.1 A total amount of R464 667.18 which is calculated as follows:
i. September 2013 salary: R86 509.50
ii. Period 1 – 11 October 2013: R35 934.16
iii. Leave days dueR78 700.60
iv. Notice pay R259 528.50
3. There is no order as to costs.
E MOLAHLEHI
Judge of the Labour Court Johannesburg
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Q. Horn of Horn Attorneys
For the Respondent: No Appearance.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.