Bargarette and Others v Performing Arts Centre of the Free State (PACOFS) and Another (J2368/07) [2007] ZALCJHB 62 (31 October 2007)

Bargarette and Others v Performing Arts Centre of the Free State (PACOFS) and Another (J2368/07) [2007] ZALCJHB 62 (31 October 2007)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing due to unavailability of chosen counsel did not amount to a violation of fundamental rights or unfairness. The applicants did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention, nor did they provide evidence linking the disciplinary action to protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act. The court held that the applicants have alternative remedies available under the Labour Relations Act should they be dismissed. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 62
Parties
Applicant: Bargarette, Nathan; Applicant: Murison, Steve Garth; Applicant: Jansen, John Stanley; Respondent: Performing Arts Centre of the Free State (PACOFS); Respondent: Mark Antrobus SC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
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
Disciplinary Procedure, Interim Interdict, Protected Disclosures Act, Employment Equity Act, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Disciplinary Procedure Interim Interdict Protected Disclosures Act Employment Equity Act Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bargarette, Nathan

Applicant

Murison, Steve Garth

Applicant

Jansen, John Stanley

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 disciplinary hearing against the applicants should be postponed pending the outcome of a related application before the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing due to unavailability of chosen counsel constitutes unfairness or a violation of rights.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to interim relief under the Protected Disclosures Act and Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing due to unavailability of chosen counsel did not amount to a violation of fundamental rights or unfairness. The applicants did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention, nor did they provide evidence linking the disciplinary action to protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act. The court held that the applicants have alternative remedies available under the Labour Relations Act should they be dismissed. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief is dismissed.