L.M v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd (2021/46570) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1125; (2024) 45 ILJ 189 (GJ) (9 October 2023)

L.M v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd (2021/46570) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1125; (2024) 45 ILJ 189 (GJ) (9 October 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim, based on the defendant's vicarious liability for sexual harassment, constitutes a debt under the Prescription Act. The plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant facts and the identity of the debtor by 30 September 2007, when she resigned and attempted to pursue a constructive dismissal claim. Prescription began running at that time and expired three years later, well before the institution of the present claim in October 2021. The commission of inquiry's findings and subsequent engagement did not add to the plaintiff's knowledge or reset prescription. Even if the defendant acknowledged liability, such acknowledgement could only interrupt...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1125
Parties
Plaintiff: LM; Defendant: South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2023
Case Number
2021/46570
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Decided Before Merits
Outcome
Defendant absolved from the instance; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Vicarious Liability, Sexual Harassment, Constructive Dismissal, Employment Equity Act, Mental Incapacity Exception
Delict Civil Procedure Labour Law Prescription Act Vicarious Liability Sexual Harassment Constructive Dismissal Employment Equity Act +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LM

Plaintiff

South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Decided Before Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the findings of the commission of inquiry or subsequent engagement by the defendant constituted an acknowledgement of liability interrupting prescription.
  3. 3 Whether section 12(4) of the Prescription Act applies to suspend prescription due to mental or emotional incapacity arising from sexual harassment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim, based on the defendant's vicarious liability for sexual harassment, constitutes a debt under the Prescription Act. The plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant facts and the identity of the debtor by 30 September 2007, when she resigned and attempted to pursue a constructive dismissal claim. Prescription began running at that time and expired three years later, well before the institution of the present claim in October 2021. The commission of inquiry's findings and subsequent engagement did not add to the plaintiff's knowledge or reset prescription. Even if the defendant acknowledged liability, such acknowledgement could only interrupt...

Court Disposition

Defendant absolved from the instance; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is absolved from the instance.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs.