Gershon v Health Professions Council of South Africa (JR2620/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 309 (11 August 2014)

Gershon v Health Professions Council of South Africa (JR2620/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 309 (11 August 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to file written submissions despite directives and reminders. The grounds for leave to appeal did not raise any new issues and largely repeated arguments from the main application. The court specifically noted that no costs order was made against the applicant, contrary to the applicant's assertion. Applying the test in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there were compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 309
Parties
Applicant: Mosiane Gershon; Respondent: Health Professions Council of South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2014
Case Number
JR2620/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Review of Arbitration Award Prospects of Success Costs Order

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mosiane Gershon

Applicant

Health Professions Council of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the review judgment delivered on 16 May 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file written submissions despite directives and reminders. The grounds for leave to appeal did not raise any new issues and largely repeated arguments from the main application. The court specifically noted that no costs order was made against the applicant, contrary to the applicant's assertion. Applying the test in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there were compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • No costs order is made.