Crazy Store (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (C373/2006) [2008] ZALCCT 8 (11 August 2008)

Crazy Store (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (C373/2006) [2008] ZALCCT 8 (11 August 2008)

The court found that the arbitrator's refusal to postpone the arbitration was reasonable, given the employee's incurred expenses and the availability of other witnesses for the employer. The consideration of evidence from the previous arbitration was not improper, as the finding of procedural unfairness was based on evidence presented, particularly the cross-examination of Ms Benning. The admission of documentary evidence, such as the letter of commendation, was permissible due to the informal nature of arbitration proceedings, and the employer failed to object during the hearing. All grounds of review were dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZALCCT 8
Parties
Applicant: Crazy Store (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Lungile Matshaka; Respondent: Clara Isabella Sophia Swiegers
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2008
Case Number
C373/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Postponement of Arbitration, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Evidence
Labour Law Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Postponement of Arbitration Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crazy Store (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Lungile Matshaka

Respondent

Clara Isabella Sophia Swiegers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed gross irregularities in refusing a postponement of the arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator improperly considered evidence from a previous rescinded arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator admitted documentary evidence not properly tendered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's refusal to postpone the arbitration was reasonable, given the employee's incurred expenses and the availability of other witnesses for the employer. The consideration of evidence from the previous arbitration was not improper, as the finding of procedural unfairness was based on evidence presented, particularly the cross-examination of Ms Benning. The admission of documentary evidence, such as the letter of commendation, was permissible due to the informal nature of arbitration proceedings, and the employer failed to object during the hearing. All grounds of review were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.