subscribe: Posts | Comments

Settlement Agreement High Court


The decision confirms that the mere marking of a confidentiality clause as a precondition to a settlement agreement does not automatically make it a clause. Therefore, when developing or negotiating confidentiality rules, particular attention should be paid to the reasons why confidentiality is of particular importance in the current circumstances. However, if you accept a transaction, this decision is final, the case does not go any further and you have exhausted your claim against the mutually agreed amount. It is common for the terms of a settlement to be subject to a court order or filed in court to facilitate the enforcement of the settlement agreement. Before you can initiate proceedings in court, your lawyer should advise you to consider mediation as a possible way to resolve the underlying dispute with the participation of an independent mediator. The lawyer will also outline the benefits of mediation and discuss its suitability for this dispute. Lawyers are also required to provide information on possible mediators. Whether or not you choose mediation with the other party is your own choice. The Court reviewed the divergent decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard in order to conclude that, in cases where the dispute has not yet begun, a settlement agreement cannot be entered into as a court order. This question was first raised by Van der Byl AJ in Growthpoint Properties Ltd v Makhonyana Technologies (Pty) Ltd and other cases NGHC No 67029/2011 (12). February 2013). In that judgment, the court explained that there was a dispute between the parties at one stage, although before a dispute had begun between them, over the amount to be paid for the subsequent rent. This dispute was settled by a settlement agreement by which the parties agreed that it could be ordered by judicial means.

Therefore, as soon as a party can take legal action against another party, the former can request in court that a settlement agreement make a court decision without incurring the costs of a dispute. The General Court also held that jurisdiction to grant such an injunction amounted to duplication only after the parties had opened judicial proceedings. The court made the settlement agreement a court order, unless there was prior legal proceeding between the parties. The employer has undertaken to pay the worker a settlement amount in instalments in full and final payment of the worker`s rights in the event of labour law. The COT3 agreement also included: the court (Judge Max Barrett) reviewed the case law and found that the text of the settlement agreement or other evidence before the Court of Justice (referring to an affidavit by Ennis` lawyer) contained nothing to indicate that a requirement to sell the property through the mortgaged land was part of the “presumed intention of the parties”. or if the court reads the settlement agreement in this way, “it would give the transaction such commercial efficiency that it should in any event have been contemplated by both parties.” . . .

Comments are closed.