Perie v Uramin Incorporated in British Columbia T/A Areva Resources Southern Africa (28154/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 320 (11 December 2013)

Perie v Uramin Incorporated in British Columbia T/A Areva Resources Southern Africa (28154/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 320 (11 December 2013)

The court found that the written employment contract was the exclusive memorial of the agreement between the parties and was silent on any obligation to compensate the plaintiff for forfeited BHP Billiton share options. The evidence did not support the existence of an express oral agreement to provide such compensation, either through a new incentive scheme, a phantom scheme, or a cash payment. The sign-on bonus was introduced to address the plaintiff's concerns but did not constitute compensation for lost share options. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the alleged oral terms. The retrenchment agreement issue was rendered moot by the court's finding on the main claim....

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 320
Parties
Plaintiff: Carolyn Perie; Defendant: Uramin Incorporated in British Columbia t/a Areva Resources Southern Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Case Number
28154/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
K Satchwell
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Specific Performance, Parol Evidence Rule, Share Options, Retrenchment Agreement
Commercial and Corporate Labour Law Employment Contract Specific Performance Parol Evidence Rule Share Options Retrenchment Agreement

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Perie

Plaintiff

Uramin Incorporated in British Columbia t/a Areva Resources Southern Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contract included an oral term obliging the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for forfeited BHP Billiton share options.
  2. 2 Whether the written employment agreement was the exclusive memorial of the parties' agreement, precluding reliance on alleged oral terms.
  3. 3 Whether the retrenchment agreement settled all claims between the parties, including the claim for compensation for lost share options.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written employment contract was the exclusive memorial of the agreement between the parties and was silent on any obligation to compensate the plaintiff for forfeited BHP Billiton share options. The evidence did not support the existence of an express oral agreement to provide such compensation, either through a new incentive scheme, a phantom scheme, or a cash payment. The sign-on bonus was introduced to address the plaintiff's concerns but did not constitute compensation for lost share options. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the alleged oral terms. The retrenchment agreement issue was rendered moot by the court's finding on the main claim....

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.