Biggar v City of Johannesburg (Emergency Management Services) (JS232/09) [2017] ZALCJHB 112 (31 March 2017)

Biggar v City of Johannesburg (Emergency Management Services) (JS232/09) [2017] ZALCJHB 112 (31 March 2017)

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge its evidentiary burden to rebut the applicant's prima facie case of racial harassment and discrimination. The applicant's version was unchallenged and, in law, must stand. The respondent, being legally represented, should have been aware of its burden of proof and the consequences of failing to lead evidence. The court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion or that the interests of justice required leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 112
Parties
Applicant: Victor Biggar; Respondent: City of Johannesburg (Emergency Management Services)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Case Number
JS232/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Unfair Discrimination
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Burden of Proof, Leave to Appeal, Racial Harassment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Discrimination Employment Equity Act Burden of Proof Leave to Appeal Racial Harassment

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Biggar

Applicant

City of Johannesburg (Emergency Management Services)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Unfair Discrimination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has shown reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding unfair discrimination.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged its evidentiary burden to rebut the applicant's prima facie case of discrimination.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require leave to appeal to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge its evidentiary burden to rebut the applicant's prima facie case of racial harassment and discrimination. The applicant's version was unchallenged and, in law, must stand. The respondent, being legally represented, should have been aware of its burden of proof and the consequences of failing to lead evidence. The court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion or that the interests of justice required leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.