Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (005/13) [2013] ZASCA 118; [2013] 11 BLLR 1057 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 125 (SCA); 2014 (2) SA 321 (SCA); (2013) 34 ILJ 2779 (SCA) (20 September 2013)

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (005/13) [2013] ZASCA 118; [2013] 11 BLLR 1057 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 125 (SCA); 2014 (2) SA 321 (SCA); (2013) 34 ILJ 2779 (SCA) (20 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rule 25(1)(c) of the CCMA rules, which limits the right to legal representation in arbitration proceedings concerning dismissals for misconduct or incapacity, is not unconstitutional. The rule is rationally connected to the legitimate government purpose of providing speedy,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 118
Parties
Appellant: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Appellant: Director, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Appellant: Minister of Labour; Appellant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces (Incorporated as the Law Society of the Transvaal)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Case Number
005/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Nugent, Malan, Wallis, Van der Merwe, Swain
Legal Topics
Legal Representation in Ccma, Rationality Review, Section 9 Equality, Section 22 Freedom of Trade, Section 34 Access to Court, Administrative Action
Labour Law Constitutional Law Legal Representation in Ccma Rationality Review Section 9 Equality Section 22 Freedom of Trade Section 34 Access to Court Administrative Action

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Appellant

Director, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Appellant

Minister of Labour

Appellant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Appellant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces (Incorporated as the Law Society of the Transvaal)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 25(1)(c) of the CCMA rules, limiting legal representation in certain arbitration proceedings, is unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the subrule unfairly discriminates against legal practitioners in violation of section 9(3) of the Constitution and the Equality Act.
  3. 3 Whether the subrule infringes section 22 of the Constitution regarding freedom of trade, occupation, and profession.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rule 25(1)(c) of the CCMA rules, which limits the right to legal representation in arbitration proceedings concerning dismissals for misconduct or incapacity, is not unconstitutional. The rule is rationally connected to the legitimate government purpose of providing speedy, inexpensive, and informal dispute resolution for unfair dismissals. The limitation is the product of a historical compromise among social partners and is consistent with the Constitution. There is no absolute right to legal representation in administrative tribunals, and the subrule provides sufficient discretion for commissioners to allow legal representation in appropriate cases....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.'