Bargarette and Others v Performing Art Centre of the Free State ("PACOFS") and Another (J2368/07) [2007] ZALC 182 (31 October 2007)

Bargarette and Others v Performing Art Centre of the Free State ("PACOFS") and Another (J2368/07) [2007] ZALC 182 (31 October 2007)

The Applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as they did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention in the disciplinary process. The sole reason advanced for postponement was the unavailability of counsel, which does not constitute a sufficient basis for intervention. The Applicants do not have an absolute right to representation by counsel of choice, and the employer is only obliged to accommodate such availability within reason. No facts were placed before the Court to establish a link between any protected disclosure and the disciplinary action, nor was there evidence of occupational detriment as envisaged by the Protected...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 182
Parties
Applicant: Nathan Bargarette; Applicant: Steve Garth Murison; Applicant: John Stanley Jansen; Respondent: Performing Arts Centre of the Free State ("PACOFS"); Respondent: Mark Antrobus SC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2007
Case Number
J2368/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Prior to Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Disciplinary Procedure, Protected Disclosures Act, Employment Equity Act, Prima Facie Right
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Disciplinary Procedure Protected Disclosures Act Employment Equity Act Prima Facie Right

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Bargarette

Applicant

Steve Garth Murison

Applicant

John Stanley Jansen

Applicant

Performing Arts Centre of the Free State ("PACOFS")

Respondent

Mark Antrobus SC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Prior to Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants are entitled to an interim interdict postponing the disciplinary hearing pending the outcome of a related application before the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing due to unavailability of counsel constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants have established a prima facie right to relief under the Protected Disclosures Act and Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as they did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention in the disciplinary process. The sole reason advanced for postponement was the unavailability of counsel, which does not constitute a sufficient basis for intervention. The Applicants do not have an absolute right to representation by counsel of choice, and the employer is only obliged to accommodate such availability within reason. No facts were placed before the Court to establish a link between any protected disclosure and the disciplinary action, nor was there evidence of occupational detriment as envisaged by the Protected...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief postponing the disciplinary hearing is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.