Hardman v Warehouse Finder CC (81695/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 39 (31 January 2022)

Hardman v Warehouse Finder CC (81695/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 39 (31 January 2022)

The court found that the employment contract entitled the plaintiff to commission for transactions brokered prior to her resignation, provided the suspensive conditions were fulfilled and the defendant received payment from the client. There was no contractual provision for forfeiture of commission upon resignation. The alleged 60% commission incentive was not valid as it was not reduced to writing and signed by both parties, as required by the contract. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to 50% of the commission received by the defendant for the Blue Array and Liberty Foods transactions. The court rejected the defendant's argument that commission was forfeited upon resignation and held...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 39
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacquelyn Ann Hardman; Defendant: Warehouse Finder CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Case Number
81695/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's action in respect of Claims 2 and 3 succeeds.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Commission Entitlement, Variation of Contract, Restraint of Trade
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Employment Contract Commission Entitlement Variation of Contract Restraint of Trade

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacquelyn Ann Hardman

Plaintiff

Warehouse Finder CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to commission for transactions brokered prior to her resignation.
  2. 2 Whether commission is payable to the plaintiff after termination of employment if received by the defendant post-termination.
  3. 3 What percentage of commission is due to the plaintiff under the employment contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the employment contract entitled the plaintiff to commission for transactions brokered prior to her resignation, provided the suspensive conditions were fulfilled and the defendant received payment from the client. There was no contractual provision for forfeiture of commission upon resignation. The alleged 60% commission incentive was not valid as it was not reduced to writing and signed by both parties, as required by the contract. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to 50% of the commission received by the defendant for the Blue Array and Liberty Foods transactions. The court rejected the defendant's argument that commission was forfeited upon resignation and held...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action in respect of Claims 2 and 3 succeeds.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff 50% commission in the amount of R 86,094.55 for the Blue Array Lease.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff 50% commission in the amount of R 438,118.70 for the Liberty Food Services Lease Agreement.