Brilliant and Others v Gauteng Gambling Board (JS276/15; JS721/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 379 (12 October 2015)

Brilliant and Others v Gauteng Gambling Board (JS276/15; JS721/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 379 (12 October 2015)

The court held that the objection of lis pendens could not succeed because, although the facts and parties in both referrals were substantially the same, the causes of action and legal questions were fundamentally different. The court found that the claim for equal pay for work of equal value is an ongoing act, and thus, the referral was not out of time and did not require condonation. However, the exception raised by the respondent was upheld because the statement of case failed to disclose sufficient facts for each applicant, such as their personal circumstances, post, remuneration, chosen comparator, and the basis for alleging unfair discrimination. The applicants were granted 30...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 379
Parties
Applicant: Brilliant and 50 Others; Respondent: Gauteng Gambling Board
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Case Number
JS276/15; JS721/14
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Preliminary Points in Limine Before Trial
Outcome
Exception upheld; applicants granted leave to amend statement of claim within 30 days.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, Unfair Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Lis Pendens, Late Referral, Statement of Case Requirements
Labour Law Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Unfair Discrimination Employment Equity Act Lis Pendens Late Referral Statement of Case Requirements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brilliant and 50 Others

Applicant

Gauteng Gambling Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Preliminary Points in Limine Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claim for equal pay for work of equal value is properly pleaded.
  2. 2 Whether the objection of lis pendens raised by the respondent is sustainable.
  3. 3 Whether the referral of the dispute was made out of time and requires condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the objection of lis pendens could not succeed because, although the facts and parties in both referrals were substantially the same, the causes of action and legal questions were fundamentally different. The court found that the claim for equal pay for work of equal value is an ongoing act, and thus, the referral was not out of time and did not require condonation. However, the exception raised by the respondent was upheld because the statement of case failed to disclose sufficient facts for each applicant, such as their personal circumstances, post, remuneration, chosen comparator, and the basis for alleging unfair discrimination. The applicants were granted 30...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; applicants granted leave to amend statement of claim within 30 days.

Orders

  • The applicants are to file an amended statement of claim within 30 calendar days from the date of this order.
  • There is no order as to costs.