Labournet Payment Solutions v Vosloo (J1086/08) [2009] ZALCJHB 92 (7 August 2009)

Labournet Payment Solutions v Vosloo (J1086/08) [2009] ZALCJHB 92 (7 August 2009)

The court found that the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract during the probationary period by giving seven days' notice, as provided by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the employment contract. Although the respondent gave less than seven days' notice, amounting to a breach, the applicant failed to establish any actual loss resulting from the breach. The applicant's claim for damages was based on an automatic calculation of notice pay rather than proof of specific loss. Consequently, the claim for damages arising from breach of contract was dismissed. The claim for recovery of training costs was found to be subject to a genuine dispute of fact and was referred to...

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 92
Parties
Applicant: Labournet Payment Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Daniel Francois Vosloo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2009
Case Number
J1086/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim for damages arising from breach of contract is dismissed. The claim for recovery of training costs is referred to oral evidence. No order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Breach of Employment Contract, Notice Period, Damages for Breach, Training Cost Recovery
Labour Law Civil Procedure Breach of Employment Contract Notice Period Damages for Breach Training Cost Recovery

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Labournet Payment Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Daniel Francois Vosloo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the employment contract by failing to give proper notice of termination.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant suffered damages as a result of the respondent's breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to recover the costs of in-house training from the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract during the probationary period by giving seven days' notice, as provided by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the employment contract. Although the respondent gave less than seven days' notice, amounting to a breach, the applicant failed to establish any actual loss resulting from the breach. The applicant's claim for damages was based on an automatic calculation of notice pay rather than proof of specific loss. Consequently, the claim for damages arising from breach of contract was dismissed. The claim for recovery of training costs was found to be subject to a genuine dispute of fact and was referred to...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for damages arising from breach of contract is dismissed. The claim for recovery of training costs is referred to oral evidence. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s claim arising from the breach of the contract of employment by the respondent is dismissed.
  • The claim regarding the payment of the in-house training is referred to oral evidence.