Toerien v University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg (JS628/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 116; (2021) 42 ILJ 2010 (LC) (27 May 2021)

Toerien v University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg (JS628/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 116; (2021) 42 ILJ 2010 (LC) (27 May 2021)

The court found that the settlement agreement, specifically clause 1.4, was intended to cover all claims of whatsoever nature arising from the applicant's employment, whether existing or future. The applicant's interpretation that only claims pending at the time were settled was rejected, as the wording and context of the agreement indicated a broader intention. The court held that the discrimination claim arose from the employment relationship and was therefore barred by the settlement agreement. The court further found that the agreement was not contrary to public policy or the Employment Equity Act, as the applicant had willingly consented to its terms and was no longer in an...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 116
Parties
Applicant: Marcus Toerien; Respondent: University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2021
Case Number
JS628/20
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Trial
Outcome
The respondent's special plea is upheld and the applicant's claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
F Coetzee
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Employment Equity Act, Interpretation of Contracts, Public Policy, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Employment Equity Act Interpretation of Contracts Public Policy Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Marcus Toerien

Applicant

University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement bars the applicant from bringing a claim under the Employment Equity Act.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement is contrary to public policy or the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the discrimination claim arises from the employment relationship and is covered by the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement, specifically clause 1.4, was intended to cover all claims of whatsoever nature arising from the applicant's employment, whether existing or future. The applicant's interpretation that only claims pending at the time were settled was rejected, as the wording and context of the agreement indicated a broader intention. The court held that the discrimination claim arose from the employment relationship and was therefore barred by the settlement agreement. The court further found that the agreement was not contrary to public policy or the Employment Equity Act, as the applicant had willingly consented to its terms and was no longer in an...

Court Disposition

The respondent's special plea is upheld and the applicant's claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent's special plea is upheld.
  • The applicant's claim is dismissed.