Lime Global Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JR827/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 144 (21 August 2020)

Lime Global Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JR827/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 144 (21 August 2020)

The court found that the applicant, a UK-based company, did not conduct a separate or divorced business undertaking in South Africa. The third respondent worked remotely from South Africa, but all evidence indicated that the applicant's business was based in the United Kingdom. There was no evidence that the employment relationship was connected to any South African business or assets. Accordingly, the CCMA lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and the third respondent's dispute was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 144
Parties
Applicant: Lime Global Ltd; Respondent: Myhill E N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Bijoux J
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Case Number
JR827/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review succeeded; arbitration award set aside; dispute dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Employee Vs Independent Contractor
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal Employee Vs Independent Contractor

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

Parties

Lime Global Ltd

Applicant

Myhill E N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Bijoux J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had territorial jurisdiction over the dispute involving a UK-based employer and a South African-based employee.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was an employee or independent contractor of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was procedurally and substantively unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, a UK-based company, did not conduct a separate or divorced business undertaking in South Africa. The third respondent worked remotely from South Africa, but all evidence indicated that the applicant's business was based in the United Kingdom. There was no evidence that the employment relationship was connected to any South African business or assets. Accordingly, the CCMA lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and the third respondent's dispute was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeded; arbitration award set aside; dispute dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 17 April 2018 case number GAJB 25408/17 is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an order that the third respondent's dispute is dismissed on the grounds that the second respondent does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
  • There is no order as to costs.