John v Afrox Oxygen Ltd (JS532/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 230 (3 July 2014)

John v Afrox Oxygen Ltd (JS532/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 230 (3 July 2014)

The court distinguished between pre-termination discussions and post-termination settlement negotiations. It held that the first paragraph of clause 22.3 referred to negotiations for a mutually agreed separation before any dispute arose and was therefore not privileged. The second paragraph, however, related to correspondence between attorneys after termination, clearly reflecting genuine settlement negotiations and marked 'without prejudice'. This content was privileged and inadmissible. Accordingly, only the second paragraph of clause 22.3 was struck out.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 230
Parties
Applicant: Lou-Anndree John; Respondent: Afrox Oxygen Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2014
Case Number
JS532/13
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Portion of Statement of Defence
Outcome
The application to strike out is partially upheld; the second paragraph of clause 22.3 is struck out.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Privilege of Settlement Negotiations, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Striking Out Pleadings
Civil Procedure Labour Law Privilege of Settlement Negotiations Automatic Unfair Dismissal Striking Out Pleadings

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lou-Anndree John

Applicant

Afrox Oxygen Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Portion of Statement of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the content of settlement negotiations disclosed in the respondent's statement of defence is privileged and should be struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the negotiations prior to termination of employment constitute privileged settlement discussions.
  3. 3 Whether the second paragraph of clause 22.3 relates to genuine settlement negotiations post-termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court distinguished between pre-termination discussions and post-termination settlement negotiations. It held that the first paragraph of clause 22.3 referred to negotiations for a mutually agreed separation before any dispute arose and was therefore not privileged. The second paragraph, however, related to correspondence between attorneys after termination, clearly reflecting genuine settlement negotiations and marked 'without prejudice'. This content was privileged and inadmissible. Accordingly, only the second paragraph of clause 22.3 was struck out.

Court Disposition

The application to strike out is partially upheld; the second paragraph of clause 22.3 is struck out.

Orders

  • The second paragraph in clause 22.3 of the respondent’s statement of defence, commencing with the words 'Applicant later persisted with the demand for …', is struck out.
  • There is no order as to costs.