Brown v Cashbuild and Others (JR169/07) [2007] ZALC 162 (4 September 2007)

Brown v Cashbuild and Others (JR169/07) [2007] ZALC 162 (4 September 2007)

The court held that the applicant, by signing the documentation as system supervisor, assumed responsibility for ensuring that cheques collected were not post-dated. Her failure to do so constituted negligence, and the arbitrator's finding was supported by the admitted and proven facts. The application for review was dismissed as the award was unassailable, and the application for condonation also failed.

Citation
[2007] ZALC 162
Parties
Applicant: MS ELIZABETH BROWN; Respondent: CASH BUILD; Respondent: SEBOTHA N.O.; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2007
Case Number
JR169/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
PILLAY D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Negligence, Dismissal for Misconduct, Condonation Application
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Negligence Dismissal for Misconduct Condonation Application

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MS ELIZABETH BROWN

Applicant

CASH BUILD

Respondent

SEBOTHA N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was responsible for ensuring that cheques collected were not post-dated.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's finding of negligence on the part of the applicant was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review and condonation should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, by signing the documentation as system supervisor, assumed responsibility for ensuring that cheques collected were not post-dated. Her failure to do so constituted negligence, and the arbitrator's finding was supported by the admitted and proven facts. The application for review was dismissed as the award was unassailable, and the application for condonation also failed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation is dismissed.