Van der Westhuizen v BDM Management (Pty) Ltd (C98/2013) [2018] ZALCCT 14 (10 May 2018)

Van der Westhuizen v BDM Management (Pty) Ltd (C98/2013) [2018] ZALCCT 14 (10 May 2018)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent was in contempt of the Labour Court order. Although the respondent did not offer the applicant re-employment, it was established that no suitable vacancy outside the noise zone had arisen, and the applicant was medically prohibited from working in the noise zone. The respondent's reliance on medical advice was reasonable and not wilful or mala fide. The requirements for contempt, specifically wilfulness and mala fides, were not satisfied. Accordingly, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 14
Parties
Applicant: Marius Stephanus Van der Westhuizen; Respondent: BDM Management (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Case Number
C98/2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; no contempt of court established.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Unfair Dismissal, Re Employment, Disability Discrimination
Labour Law Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Unfair Dismissal Re Employment Disability Discrimination

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marius Stephanus Van der Westhuizen

Applicant

BDM Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the Labour Court order requiring re-employment of the applicant should a suitable vacancy arise.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's failure to offer re-employment constitutes wilful and mala fide non-compliance with the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has proven non-compliance with the court order beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent was in contempt of the Labour Court order. Although the respondent did not offer the applicant re-employment, it was established that no suitable vacancy outside the noise zone had arisen, and the applicant was medically prohibited from working in the noise zone. The respondent's reliance on medical advice was reasonable and not wilful or mala fide. The requirements for contempt, specifically wilfulness and mala fides, were not satisfied. Accordingly, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no contempt of court established.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.