Lewis and Another v Contract Interiors CC (J2216/98) [2000] ZALC 125; [2001] 2 BLLR 155 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 466 (LC) (2 November 2000)

Lewis and Another v Contract Interiors CC (J2216/98) [2000] ZALC 125; [2001] 2 BLLR 155 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 466 (LC) (2 November 2000)

The court found that neither the applicants nor the respondent intended to create an employment relationship during the relevant period. The evidence demonstrated that the applicants' activities and remuneration were conducted in anticipation of acquiring a beneficial interest in the business, not as employees. The absence of mutual or unilateral intention to enter into a contract of employment was decisive. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving employment, and therefore, no question of dismissal arose. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 125
Parties
Applicant: Marilyn Lewis; Applicant: Richard Lewis; Respondent: Contract Interiors CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2000
Case Number
J2216/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Onus of Proof, Dismissal, Contract of Employment, Remuneration, Business Transfer
Labour Law Employment Relationship Onus of Proof Dismissal Contract of Employment Remuneration Business Transfer

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marilyn Lewis

Applicant

Richard Lewis

Applicant

Contract Interiors CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were employees of the respondent between 1 July 1997 and their alleged dismissals.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were dismissed by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether a contract of employment existed between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the applicants nor the respondent intended to create an employment relationship during the relevant period. The evidence demonstrated that the applicants' activities and remuneration were conducted in anticipation of acquiring a beneficial interest in the business, not as employees. The absence of mutual or unilateral intention to enter into a contract of employment was decisive. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving employment, and therefore, no question of dismissal arose. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the respondent's costs.