Maart v CCMA and Others (C673/2016) [2017] ZALCCT 49 (3 August 2017)

Maart v CCMA and Others (C673/2016) [2017] ZALCCT 49 (3 August 2017)

The applicant was offered all the relief she sought in her notice of motion, namely, that the arbitration award be reviewed, set aside, and remitted to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner. Despite this, she persisted with litigation and demanded additional compensation, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary legal costs. The Court found her conduct unreasonable and held that she should be liable for the respondent's costs. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, the dispute remitted to the CCMA for fresh arbitration, and the applicant ordered to pay the third respondent's costs.

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 49
Parties
Applicant: Kim Maart; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Reza Slamang; Respondent: Polar Ice Cream (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2017
Case Number
C673/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application granted in part; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute remitted to CCMA for fresh arbitration; applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Award, Remittal for Fresh Arbitration
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Costs Award Remittal for Fresh Arbitration

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Maart

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Reza Slamang

Respondent

Polar Ice Cream (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute should be remitted to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before a different commissioner.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was offered all the relief she sought in her notice of motion, namely, that the arbitration award be reviewed, set aside, and remitted to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner. Despite this, she persisted with litigation and demanded additional compensation, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary legal costs. The Court found her conduct unreasonable and held that she should be liable for the respondent's costs. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, the dispute remitted to the CCMA for fresh arbitration, and the applicant ordered to pay the third respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute remitted to CCMA for fresh arbitration; applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration order of 26 September 2016 under case number WECT6945/16 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The applicant's unfair dismissal dispute is remitted to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before a commissioner other than the second respondent.