Gary Wayne Hollaway v Merisant SA (Pty) Ltd (J2609/02) [2002] ZALC 150 (3 July 2002)

Gary Wayne Hollaway v Merisant SA (Pty) Ltd (J2609/02) [2002] ZALC 150 (3 July 2002)

The court found that, even assuming the agreement alleged by the applicant was concluded, the breach by the respondent in unilaterally appointing the chairperson and setting dates for the disciplinary inquiry did not warrant specific performance, as the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm. Remedies under the Labour Relations Act would be available if the applicant were dismissed. Regarding remuneration, the deduction of PAYE from the applicant's salary was lawful and in accordance with statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act. The application to compel further particulars and documents was refused as the respondent had not had an opportunity to respond and the court lacked...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 150
Parties
Applicant: Gary Wayne Hollaway; Respondent: Merisant SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2002
Case Number
J2609/02
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Remuneration Deduction, Disciplinary Inquiry, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Remuneration Deduction Disciplinary Inquiry Costs Order

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Wayne Hollaway

Applicant

Merisant SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached an agreement regarding the disciplinary inquiry chairperson and legal representation.
  2. 2 Whether the deduction of PAYE from the applicant's June 2002 remuneration was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondent to provide further particulars and documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even assuming the agreement alleged by the applicant was concluded, the breach by the respondent in unilaterally appointing the chairperson and setting dates for the disciplinary inquiry did not warrant specific performance, as the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm. Remedies under the Labour Relations Act would be available if the applicant were dismissed. Regarding remuneration, the deduction of PAYE from the applicant's salary was lawful and in accordance with statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act. The application to compel further particulars and documents was refused as the respondent had not had an opportunity to respond and the court lacked...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The application to compel particulars and documents is refused.