Fynn v University of KwaZulu-Natal (LD654/04) [2006] ZALC 5; [2006] 11 BLLR 1099 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1665 (LC) (6 April 2006)

Fynn v University of KwaZulu-Natal (LD654/04) [2006] ZALC 5; [2006] 11 BLLR 1099 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1665 (LC) (6 April 2006)

The court found that the word 'disbursements' in clause 5 of the settlement agreement was ambiguous, as evidenced by the three competing interpretations advanced by the parties. The applicant's broad interpretation was rejected because it lacked clear criteria, would render the settlement costs indeterminable, and would grant benefits beyond those agreed as part of her employment. The respondent's interpretation, grounded in the UDW policy, was preferred, as it provided a reasonable and determinable scope for 'disbursements' and reflected the parties' probable intention at the time of the merger. The court held that 'disbursements' should be interpreted in line with the UDW policy,...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 5
Parties
Applicant: F E A Fynn; Respondent: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2006
Case Number
LD654/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Oral Evidence and Counter Application
Outcome
Counter-application succeeds with costs; settlement agreement made an order of court with no order as to costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Interpretation of Contracts, Remission of Fees, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Interpretation of Contracts Remission of Fees Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F E A Fynn

Applicant

University of KwaZulu-Natal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Oral Evidence and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper interpretation of 'disbursements' in clause 5 of the settlement agreement.
  2. 2 Should the settlement agreement be made an order of court.
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the word 'disbursements' in clause 5 of the settlement agreement was ambiguous, as evidenced by the three competing interpretations advanced by the parties. The applicant's broad interpretation was rejected because it lacked clear criteria, would render the settlement costs indeterminable, and would grant benefits beyond those agreed as part of her employment. The respondent's interpretation, grounded in the UDW policy, was preferred, as it provided a reasonable and determinable scope for 'disbursements' and reflected the parties' probable intention at the time of the merger. The court held that 'disbursements' should be interpreted in line with the UDW policy,...

Court Disposition

Counter-application succeeds with costs; settlement agreement made an order of court with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The counter-application, as amended, succeeds with costs.
  • The application to make the settlement agreement an order of court is granted with no order as to costs.