Kanstinger v Doornbosch Restaurant CC (C 295/98) [1999] ZALC 23 (23 February 1999)

Kanstinger v Doornbosch Restaurant CC (C 295/98) [1999] ZALC 23 (23 February 1999)

The court found that the applicant was an employee of the respondent at the time of dismissal, as he worked for the respondent, received remuneration, and assisted in carrying on the business. The sale of the business resulted in the applicant's dismissal without consultation or fair procedure, constituting both substantive and procedural unfairness. The respondent failed to provide any fair reason for the dismissal, and no consultation occurred as required by law. The applicant did not wish to be reinstated, so the court ordered compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration at the rate of R11,000 per month, with interest payable from the date of judgment. Costs were awarded to...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 23
Parties
Applicant: Emil Kanstinger; Respondent: Doornbosch Restaurant CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 1999
Case Number
C 295/98
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application succeeds. The applicant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Sale of Business, Constructive Dismissal, Compensation, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Sale of Business Constructive Dismissal Compensation Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emil Kanstinger

Applicant

Doornbosch Restaurant CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent at the time of dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was dismissed by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was an employee of the respondent at the time of dismissal, as he worked for the respondent, received remuneration, and assisted in carrying on the business. The sale of the business resulted in the applicant's dismissal without consultation or fair procedure, constituting both substantive and procedural unfairness. The respondent failed to provide any fair reason for the dismissal, and no consultation occurred as required by law. The applicant did not wish to be reinstated, so the court ordered compensation equivalent to twelve months' remuneration at the rate of R11,000 per month, with interest payable from the date of judgment. Costs were awarded to...

Court Disposition

Application succeeds. The applicant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation.

Orders

  • The applicant was an employee of the respondent on 1 November 1997, the date of his dismissal.
  • The applicant was not dismissed for a fair reason by the respondent. His dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.