Thorp v National Homebuilders Registration Council (JS845/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 167 (6 April 2017)

Thorp v National Homebuilders Registration Council (JS845/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 167 (6 April 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a binding contractual term entitling him to either the claimed performance bonus or the gratuity equivalent to two years' remuneration. The bonus scheme operated at the discretion of the defendant's council, which had exercised its discretion and paid the plaintiff what was resolved. The evidence showed that clause 19(c), which purported to provide for a gratuity, was deleted by the defendant and never accepted. The plaintiff did not establish that the defendant agreed to the proposed term, nor was any acceptance communicated. Accordingly, no contractual right to the claimed payments existed, and the claims must fail.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 167
Parties
Plaintiff: Courtney Thorp; Defendant: National Homebuilders Registration Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2017
Case Number
JS845/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Performance Bonus, Contractual Discretion, Termination Payments
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Fixed Term Contracts Performance Bonus Contractual Discretion Termination Payments

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Courtney Thorp

Plaintiff

National Homebuilders Registration Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is contractually entitled to payment of a performance bonus beyond what was paid.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is contractually entitled to a 'golden handshake' or gratuity equivalent to two years' remuneration upon non-renewal of his fixed term contract.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct created a binding contractual obligation for the claimed payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a binding contractual term entitling him to either the claimed performance bonus or the gratuity equivalent to two years' remuneration. The bonus scheme operated at the discretion of the defendant's council, which had exercised its discretion and paid the plaintiff what was resolved. The evidence showed that clause 19(c), which purported to provide for a gratuity, was deleted by the defendant and never accepted. The plaintiff did not establish that the defendant agreed to the proposed term, nor was any acceptance communicated. Accordingly, no contractual right to the claimed payments existed, and the claims must fail.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.