Deventer v Deutsche Securities (Pty) Ltd (JS 183/2019) [2023] ZALCJHB 53 (8 March 2023)

Deventer v Deutsche Securities (Pty) Ltd (JS 183/2019) [2023] ZALCJHB 53 (8 March 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The applicant did not discharge the onus of proof in the original proceedings, and her version could not be accepted merely because the respondent did not call a witness. The factual matrix was correctly treated, and there was no legitimate dispute on the law. The stringent test for leave to appeal was not met, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 53
Parties
Applicant: Larissa van Deventer; Respondent: Deutsche Securities (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2023
Case Number
JS 183/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 15 November 2022
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Onus of Proof, Expeditious Resolution of Labour Disputes
Labour Law Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Onus of Proof Expeditious Resolution of Labour Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larissa van Deventer

Applicant

Deutsche Securities (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 15 November 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proof in the original proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Appeal Court would treat the factual matrix differently or find a legitimate dispute on the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The applicant did not discharge the onus of proof in the original proceedings, and her version could not be accepted merely because the respondent did not call a witness. The factual matrix was correctly treated, and there was no legitimate dispute on the law. The stringent test for leave to appeal was not met, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.