Ming v MMI Holdings Ltd and Others (JR1211/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 238 (28 August 2019)

Ming v MMI Holdings Ltd and Others (JR1211/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 238 (28 August 2019)

The court found that the applicant exaggerated her injury to avoid attending the disciplinary hearing, which constituted dishonesty. Given her senior position and the nature of the misconduct, the breakdown of trust was inevitable. The arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively fair was reasonable and could not be faulted. The application for review was therefore dismissed, as the award was one that a reasonable commissioner could arrive at. The court declined to entertain the preliminary point of peremption, as it was rendered academic by the dismissal of the review on the merits.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 238
Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Lee Ming; Respondent: MMI Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Tshepiso Mashigo N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Case Number
JR1211/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Dishonesty, Breakdown of Trust, Procedural Fairness, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Dishonesty Breakdown of Trust Procedural Fairness Review of Arbitration Award

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Lee Ming

Applicant

MMI Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Tshepiso Mashigo N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant exaggerated her injury to avoid disciplinary proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's award was one that a reasonable commissioner could arrive at.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant exaggerated her injury to avoid attending the disciplinary hearing, which constituted dishonesty. Given her senior position and the nature of the misconduct, the breakdown of trust was inevitable. The arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively fair was reasonable and could not be faulted. The application for review was therefore dismissed, as the award was one that a reasonable commissioner could arrive at. The court declined to entertain the preliminary point of peremption, as it was rendered academic by the dismissal of the review on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.