Trisk v Exclusive Books Group (Pty) Ltd (17766/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 42 (12 March 2021)

Trisk v Exclusive Books Group (Pty) Ltd (17766/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 42 (12 March 2021)

The court found that the payment made to the applicant was intended and understood by both parties to be remuneration, not a severance benefit. The settlement agreement, while referencing the equivalent of nine months' remuneration, included notice pay, leave pay, and other statutory amounts, indicating that the payment was remuneration paid in advance. The applicant was not retrenched nor terminated due to age, and thus did not qualify for the tax benefit associated with a severance benefit. The respondent was correct in its tax treatment and in applying for the directive as it did. Once the directive was received, the applicant's complaint was moot, and the respondent could not be...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Benjamin Trisk; Respondent: Exclusive Books Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Case Number
17766/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Vally
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Tax Directive, Severance Benefit, Remuneration, Income Tax Act, Employment Termination
Labour Law Tax Law Settlement Agreement Tax Directive Severance Benefit Remuneration Income Tax Act Employment Termination

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Trisk

Applicant

Exclusive Books Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged under the settlement agreement to apply for a tax directive in respect of payments made to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the payment made to the applicant constitutes a severance benefit or remuneration for tax purposes.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with its obligations under the agreement and the law regarding the tax directive and IRP5 certificate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the payment made to the applicant was intended and understood by both parties to be remuneration, not a severance benefit. The settlement agreement, while referencing the equivalent of nine months' remuneration, included notice pay, leave pay, and other statutory amounts, indicating that the payment was remuneration paid in advance. The applicant was not retrenched nor terminated due to age, and thus did not qualify for the tax benefit associated with a severance benefit. The respondent was correct in its tax treatment and in applying for the directive as it did. Once the directive was received, the applicant's complaint was moot, and the respondent could not be...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs, which costs after 20 November 2020 are to be taxed on an attorney and client scale.