Hartley v South African Social Security Agency (JR 1648/10 ; J 492/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 193 (15 June 2023)

Hartley v South African Social Security Agency (JR 1648/10 ; J 492/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 193 (15 June 2023)

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Practice Manual and Rules by not filing written submissions in support of her application for leave to appeal. The grounds for appeal were confusing, overlapping, and did not establish any compelling reason or reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The court's discretion in refusing to make the arbitration award an order of court was exercised judicially, and no basis was shown for interference. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 193
Parties
Applicant: Suraya Hartley; Respondent: South African Social Security Agency
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
JR 1648/10 ; J 492/20
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Section 158(1)(c) Application.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Section 158 1 C Application, Practice Manual Compliance, Judicial Discretion
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Section 158 1 C Application Practice Manual Compliance Judicial Discretion

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suraya Hartley

Applicant

South African Social Security Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Section 158(1)(c) Application.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the Practice Manual and Rules regarding submissions for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal establish a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether the court's discretion in refusing to make the arbitration award an order of court was exercised judicially.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Practice Manual and Rules by not filing written submissions in support of her application for leave to appeal. The grounds for appeal were confusing, overlapping, and did not establish any compelling reason or reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The court's discretion in refusing to make the arbitration award an order of court was exercised judicially, and no basis was shown for interference. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal 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.