Norkie v Diskom Discount (P424/2000) [2001] ZALC 40; [2001] 6 BLLR 652 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1851 (LC) (16 March 2001)

Norkie v Diskom Discount (P424/2000) [2001] ZALC 40; [2001] 6 BLLR 652 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1851 (LC) (16 March 2001)

The court found that the written settlement agreement did not reflect the complete agreement between the parties. The evidence established that the parties had orally agreed, through their representatives and the CCMA commissioner, that the applicant would be reinstated and then subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. The applicant's representative requested that this term not be recorded in writing, but the oral understanding remained binding. The applicant's refusal to participate in the disciplinary process and her attempt to exploit the written agreement's omission of the disciplinary term were found to be dishonest. The applicant failed to call material witnesses, including herself, to...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 40
Parties
Applicant: Tersia Norkie; Respondent: Diskom Discount
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2001
Case Number
P424/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Francis AJ
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Section 158 1 C Application, Disciplinary Enquiry, Onus of Proof, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Section 158 1 C Application Disciplinary Enquiry Onus of Proof Costs Award

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

Parties

Tersia Norkie

Applicant

Diskom Discount

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written settlement agreement dated 11 May 2000 reflected the complete agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the parties intended or agreed that following reinstatement, the applicant would be subjected to a disciplinary enquiry.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's application to make the settlement agreement an order of court should succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written settlement agreement did not reflect the complete agreement between the parties. The evidence established that the parties had orally agreed, through their representatives and the CCMA commissioner, that the applicant would be reinstated and then subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. The applicant's representative requested that this term not be recorded in writing, but the oral understanding remained binding. The applicant's refusal to participate in the disciplinary process and her attempt to exploit the written agreement's omission of the disciplinary term were found to be dishonest. The applicant failed to call material witnesses, including herself, to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application to make the agreement an order of court is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs associated with the hearing before Landman J on 3 November 2000, on a scale as between attorney and client.