Skorbinski v Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport (1935/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 14; 2009 (5) SA 461 (ECP); (2009) 30 ILJ 2847 (ECP) (5 May 2009)

Skorbinski v Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport (1935/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 14; 2009 (5) SA 461 (ECP); (2009) 30 ILJ 2847 (ECP) (5 May 2009)

The court held that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act unequivocally precludes an employee from instituting a damages claim against the employer for occupational injuries. The plaintiff's attempt to frame his claim as delictual does not circumvent the statutory bar. Any delay by the employer in reporting the accident does not convert the claim into a common law action. The plaintiff's remedy lies exclusively within the statutory compensation scheme, and the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action outside the Act. Accordingly, the exception is upheld.

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: George Henry Skorbinski; Defendant: Deon Beyers Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 May 2009
Case Number
1935/08
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim set aside with costs.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Statutory Bar to Common Law Claims, Exception Procedure
Labour Law Delict Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act Statutory Bar to Common Law Claims Exception Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Henry Skorbinski

Plaintiff

Deon Beyers Bezuidenhout t/a DB Transport

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act precludes the plaintiff from claiming damages against his employer for an occupational injury.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim can be sustained as a delictual claim outside the ambit of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act unequivocally precludes an employee from instituting a damages claim against the employer for occupational injuries. The plaintiff's attempt to frame his claim as delictual does not circumvent the statutory bar. Any delay by the employer in reporting the accident does not convert the claim into a common law action. The plaintiff's remedy lies exclusively within the statutory compensation scheme, and the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action outside the Act. Accordingly, the exception is upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim set aside with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff's particulars of claim are set aside.