McCarthy v Michelangelo Hotel (Roberto Rosa) (J1236/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 289 (8 August 2017)

McCarthy v Michelangelo Hotel (Roberto Rosa) (J1236/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 289 (8 August 2017)

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent had not complied with the settlement agreement. The monetary component was paid, and any issue regarding references was not substantiated or shown to be unresolved in a manner requiring court intervention. As the respondent had complied, making the agreement an order of court would have no practical effect and would be academic. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 289
Parties
Applicant: David Mark McCarthy; Respondent: Michelangelo Hotel (Roberto Rosa)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2017
Case Number
J1236/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Section 158 1 C Application, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Mootness, Neutral Reference, Tax Deduction on Settlement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 158 1 C Application Settlement Agreement Enforcement Mootness Neutral Reference Tax Deduction on Settlement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mark McCarthy

Applicant

Michelangelo Hotel (Roberto Rosa)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed or refused to comply with the terms of the CCMA settlement agreement.
  2. 2 Whether it is necessary to make the settlement agreement an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the application has any practical effect or is merely academic.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent had not complied with the settlement agreement. The monetary component was paid, and any issue regarding references was not substantiated or shown to be unresolved in a manner requiring court intervention. As the respondent had complied, making the agreement an order of court would have no practical effect and would be academic. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.