Niselow v Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd. (450/96) [1998] ZASCA 42; 1998 (4) SA 163 (SCA); (1998) 19 ILJ 752 (SCA) (27 May 1998)

Niselow v Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd. (450/96) [1998] ZASCA 42; 1998 (4) SA 163 (SCA); (1998) 19 ILJ 752 (SCA) (27 May 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not an employee as defined in section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1956. The written agreement between the parties established a relationship in which the appellant was required to produce a certain result, namely the canvassing of insurance contracts, rather than to render personal services to the respondent. The appellant was remunerated by commission based on contracts effected through him, not for time spent or services rendered. He was not subject to the respondent's control or supervision regarding how, when, or where he worked, and he could employ others to assist him. The evidence of practical arrangements, such as...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: Ivor Niselow; Respondent: Liberty Life Association of Africa Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 1998
Case Number
450/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Appeal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Mahomed, Van Heerden, Harms, Zulman, Streicher
Legal Topics
Employee Definition, Independent Contractor, Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Industrial Court
Labour Law Employee Definition Independent Contractor Unfair Labour Practice Jurisdiction of Industrial Court

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivor Niselow

Appellant

Liberty Life Association of Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Appeal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was an employee of the respondent as defined in section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1956.
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for losses resulting from termination of the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the contractual relationship was one of employment or independent contracting.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not an employee as defined in section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1956. The written agreement between the parties established a relationship in which the appellant was required to produce a certain result, namely the canvassing of insurance contracts, rather than to render personal services to the respondent. The appellant was remunerated by commission based on contracts effected through him, not for time spent or services rendered. He was not subject to the respondent's control or supervision regarding how, when, or where he worked, and he could employ others to assist him. The evidence of practical arrangements, such as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.