Media 24 Ltd and Another v Grobler (301/2004) [2005] ZASCA 64; [2005] 3 All SA 297 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 328 (SCA); (2005) 26 ILJ (1007) (SCA); [2005] 7 BLLR 649 (SCA) (1 June 2005)

Media 24 Ltd and Another v Grobler (301/2004) [2005] ZASCA 64; [2005] 3 All SA 297 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 328 (SCA); (2005) 26 ILJ (1007) (SCA); [2005] 7 BLLR 649 (SCA) (1 June 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent was subjected to sexual harassment by the second appellant, which culminated in a traumatic incident away from the workplace but was causally linked to a series of workplace harassment. The employer, Tydskrifte (represented by the first appellant), owed a common law duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and failed to do so when management ignored credible complaints. The respondent suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result of the harassment, qualifying her for damages. The court held that statutory remedies under the Labour Relations Act and Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act did not...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 64
Parties
Appellant: Media 24 Limited; Appellant: Gasant Samuels; Respondent: Sonja Grobler
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2005
Case Number
301/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals of both appellants dismissed with costs.
Judges
Farlam, Navsa, Conradie, Heher, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employer Liability, Negligent Breach of Duty, Vicarious Liability, Jurisdiction of High Court, Psychiatric Injury
Delict Labour Law Sexual Harassment Employer Liability Negligent Breach of Duty Vicarious Liability Jurisdiction of High Court Psychiatric Injury

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Media 24 Limited

Appellant

Gasant Samuels

Appellant

Sonja Grobler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was sexually harassed by the second appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the employer (first appellant) is liable for damages arising from sexual harassment committed by an employee.
  3. 3 Whether the employer breached a legal duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent was subjected to sexual harassment by the second appellant, which culminated in a traumatic incident away from the workplace but was causally linked to a series of workplace harassment. The employer, Tydskrifte (represented by the first appellant), owed a common law duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and failed to do so when management ignored credible complaints. The respondent suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result of the harassment, qualifying her for damages. The court held that statutory remedies under the Labour Relations Act and Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act did not...

Court Disposition

Appeals of both appellants dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeals of both appellants are dismissed with costs.