Schloemann v Goldstone Resources Ltd (C 658/16) [2018] ZALCCT 40 (13 December 2018)

Schloemann v Goldstone Resources Ltd (C 658/16) [2018] ZALCCT 40 (13 December 2018)

The Court found that the respondent failed to prove that the applicant resigned or that there was a mutual agreement to terminate the employment. The evidence and probabilities supported the applicant's version that his employment was terminated by the respondent, not by resignation. The contract entitled the applicant to 12 months' remuneration if terminated unfairly or without agreement. Although the applicant's salary was reduced to $140,000 per annum, the Court held that there was partial agreement to this reduction, as evidenced by the signed responsibility letter and acceptance of the reduced salary. The respondent's application to amend its pleadings was refused due to prejudice...

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 40
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Schloemann; Respondent: Goldstone Resources Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
C 658/16
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applicant's claim for 12 months' remuneration succeeds; respondent's application to amend pleadings is refused; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Anton J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Termination of Employment, Variation of Contract, Specific Performance, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contract of Employment Termination of Employment Variation of Contract Specific Performance Onus of Proof

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Schloemann

Applicant

Goldstone Resources Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant resigned or was dismissed by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is contractually entitled to 12 months' remuneration under clause 13.1 of the employment contract.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant agreed to a reduction in annual remuneration from $210,000 to $140,000.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent failed to prove that the applicant resigned or that there was a mutual agreement to terminate the employment. The evidence and probabilities supported the applicant's version that his employment was terminated by the respondent, not by resignation. The contract entitled the applicant to 12 months' remuneration if terminated unfairly or without agreement. Although the applicant's salary was reduced to $140,000 per annum, the Court held that there was partial agreement to this reduction, as evidenced by the signed responsibility letter and acceptance of the reduced salary. The respondent's application to amend its pleadings was refused due to prejudice...

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim for 12 months' remuneration succeeds; respondent's application to amend pleadings is refused; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent's application to amend its statement of response is refused.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant US $140,000, due on a month-to-month basis from 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, together with interest a temporae morae at the rate of 10% per annum calculated from the date on which each payment was due until date of payment.