Tag archives: Settlement agreements

Interpreting a settlement agreement

By Donald Dinnie and Paul Cartwright on October 20, 2021 Posted in Interpretation

The Supreme Court of Appeal, in Pelham Stephanus Bothma and Others v Tertius Bothma N.O and Another (Case number 748/2019) [2021] ZASCA 46 (15 April 2021), re-affirmed the position regarding the interpretation of legal documents, re-stating the principle that only admissible evidence of context, conservatively applied, may be led in resolving an interpretation dispute. The dispute … Continue reading

Effect of settlement agreement

By Patrick Bracher (ZA) on March 11, 2020 Posted in Drafting tips

Ten years after the 2010 World Cup the Supreme Court of Appeal has given judgment in a dispute between the South African Football Association and a travel business relating to travel arrangements for the competition. The parties had a settlement agreement which was in ‘full and final settlement’ of the dispute relating to whether SAFA … Continue reading

A settlement agreement is not governed by the National Credit Act if the underlying dispute is not

By Riccardo Petersen (ZA) on April 4, 2019 Posted in General

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that if the underlying cause of a settlement does not fall within the parameters of the National Credit Act (NCA), then the settlement agreement cannot logically be converted to a credit agreement under the NCA. The underlying cause (in this case the rental agreement) is of vital significance because … Continue reading

Acceptance of settlement offer must be unconditional

By Patrick Bracher (ZA) on April 3, 2019 Posted in General

The Supreme Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the principle that where a party alleges that a compromise (settlement) has been effected in an exchange of correspondence it must be proved that the offer of compromise was accepted. The acceptance must be absolute, unconditional and identical with the offer. Otherwise there is no consensus and no … Continue reading

Dispute not settled if made subject to written agreement

By Patrick Bracher (ZA) on July 24, 2018 Posted in General

A UK court examined whether a construction dispute had been settled in the course of without prejudice correspondence between the parties’ lawyers. The letter of acceptance of the offer said the settlement was subject to approval by the board of the builder and would only become valid and binding when executed by authorised signatories. The … Continue reading

Limited grounds to set aside settlement made order of court

By Patrick Bracher (ZA) on June 1, 2017 Posted in General

If a settlement agreement is made an order of court it is not enough to try to set aside the agreement without rescinding the court order. The order of court is not void and must be rescinded but this can only be done on the limited grounds of fraud and justifiable error (justus error) or … Continue reading

UK Court rules that settlement with a concurrent wrongdoer does not release other wrongdoers unless it satisfies the whole claim

By Justin Malherbe (ZA) on October 31, 2016 Posted in General

A UK High Court has decided that settlement of a claim for injuries sustained by a sub-contractor on a construction project would only extinguish a further claim against a hospital for alleged negligent treatment received following the work accident if the settlement satisfied the whole claim. The defendant hospital brought an application to declare the … Continue reading

Settlement agreements and waiver of right to approach courts

By Aslam Moosajee (ZA) on September 19, 2016 Posted in General

On 15 September 2016, the Constitutional Court in Gbenga-Oluwatoye v Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (Pty) Ltd, held that a full and final settlement clause in an agreement to settle a dispute was lawful, even though the agreement contained a waiver to approach the CCMA or any other court for relief. The court highlighted the importance … Continue reading

Insurers, settlement agreements and fraud

By Donald Dinnie on June 30, 2015 Posted in Insurance

Insurers should remember that, in the absence of fraud, settlement of an ill-founded claim is nonetheless binding and if you settle despite a reasonable suspicion of fraud you will be bound by the settlement. That was confirmed as a well-established principle of English law recently in Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co. It is also a … Continue reading