Brink v Safety And Security and Others (C198/2013) [2014] ZALCCT 70 (9 September 2014)

Brink v Safety And Security and Others (C198/2013) [2014] ZALCCT 70 (9 September 2014)

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered all the evidence before her, weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and reached reasonable conclusions based on the probabilities. The applicant's grounds for review were not substantiated, and the arbitrator's findings were not so unreasonable as to warrant interference. The process followed by the arbitrator met all the requirements set out in Goldfields Mining, and the applicant failed to make out a case for review. The application was dismissed with costs, as the applicant pursued the matter without prospects of success, causing the respondents to incur unnecessary legal expenses.

Citation
[2014] ZALCCT 70
Parties
Applicant: Roger Craig Brink; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Geraldine Dunn; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2014
Case Number
C198/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Credibility of Witnesses, Costs Award
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Credibility of Witnesses Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Craig Brink

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Geraldine Dunn

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award handed down by Ms Dunn under the auspices of the SSSBC should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider relevant evidence or considered irrelevant evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered all the evidence before her, weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and reached reasonable conclusions based on the probabilities. The applicant's grounds for review were not substantiated, and the arbitrator's findings were not so unreasonable as to warrant interference. The process followed by the arbitrator met all the requirements set out in Goldfields Mining, and the applicant failed to make out a case for review. The application was dismissed with costs, as the applicant pursued the matter without prospects of success, causing the respondents to incur unnecessary legal expenses.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the South African Police Services.