Solidarity obo Hartzenberg v Vioflot Construction (Pty) Ltd t/a KLP Structures & Construction (JS 880/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 70 (2 May 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 70
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- JS 880/12
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- JS 880/12
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant's version is unchallenged and supported by documentary evidence. The respondent failed to pay the individual applicant's salary for the specified months and did not oppose the claim. The requirements for a default judgment under section 77(3) of the BCEA are satisfied. The applicant is entitled to the claimed amount, subject to statutory deductions and interest.
Court disposition
Default judgment granted in favour of the applicant.
Orders
- The respondent has failed and neglected to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the salary due and owing.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the amount of R14,500.00 with interest a tempore mora, less tax and other statutory deductions.
02
Material facts
Parties
Solidarity obo A S Hartzenberg
ApplicantVioflot Construction (Pty) Ltd t/a KLP Structures & Construction
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Unpaid Salary for October, November, and December 2011: ZAR 14,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Under Section 77(3) of the BCEA
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent failed to pay the individual applicant's salary for October, November, and December 2011.
- 02
Whether the applicant is entitled to a default judgment under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant claims that the respondent failed to pay the individual applicant's salary for October, November, and December 2011, totaling R14,500. The claim was properly served, and the respondent did not oppose or file a notice of intention to defend. The applicant seeks payment of the outstanding salary with interest and statutory deductions.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file any opposition or response to the claim. No version was presented by the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997
Section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act empowers the Labour Court to determine claims relating to contracts of employment, including claims for unpaid salary.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant's version is unchallenged and supported by documentary evidence. The respondent failed to pay the individual applicant's salary for the specified months and did not oppose the claim. The requirements for a default judgment under section 77(3) of the BCEA are satisfied. The applicant is entitled to the claimed amount, subject to statutory deductions and interest.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's failure to oppose or respond to the claim justifies the granting of a default judgment.
- Proper service of the claim and expiry of the time to oppose are sufficient procedural grounds for default judgment.
Court disposition
Default judgment granted in favour of the applicant.
- The respondent has failed and neglected to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the salary due and owing.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the amount of R14,500.00 with interest a tempore mora, less tax and other statutory deductions.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
3
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: JS 880-12
In the matter between –
SOLIDARITY obo A S HARTZENBERG ........................................................Applicant
And
VIOFLOT CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD t/a
KLP STRUCTURES & CONSTRUCTION ..................................................Respondent
Date of judgment: 02 May 2013
_______________
JUDGMENT
MOLAHLEHI J
[1] This is an application for a default judgment in terms of which the applicant seeks an order directing the respondent to pay the individual applicant unpaid salary for the months of October, November and December 2011.
[2] The applicants have launched the claim under the provision of Section 77 (3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997. The applicants in their statement of case contends that the respondent has despite the claim for the payment of the outstanding
salaries of the individual applicant failed to or neglected to pay the amount due and owing. The breakdown of the amount due and owing is as follows:
October 2011: R4500. 00
November 2011: R5000. 00
December 2011: R5000. 00
Total R14500. 00
[3] The applicants contend that the claim was duly and properly served on the respondent and the respondent has not opposed the
claim. The time for serving and filing the notice of intention to oppose the claim has expired.
[4] The only version, which has not been challenged, is that of the individual applicant. There exist no reason why the version of the applicants should be rejected. The applicants have accordingly made a case warranting the granting of the default judgment.
The order
[5] In the circumstances, the following order is made:
1. The respondent has failed and or neglected to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the salary which is due and owing.
2. The respondent is ordered to pay the individual applicant, Mr A S Hartzenberg, the amount of R14500,00 with interest a tempore mora less tax and other statutory deductions with.
E MOLAHLEHI
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
Appearances:
Matter considered in Chambers
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.