Ohff v Balkaran NO and Others (464/15) [2017] ZALCD 16 (2 June 2017)

Ohff v Balkaran NO and Others (464/15) [2017] ZALCD 16 (2 June 2017)

The applicant's employment terminated by agreement on 28 February 2014 as recorded in the separation agreement. She was fully aware of this date and deliberately failed to disclose the agreement in her condonation application. Her explanation for the delay was unreasonable and unacceptable. The prospects of success were non-existent as she was neither retrenched nor dismissed for operational requirements. The first respondent's refusal of condonation was not reviewable, and the applicant's conduct warranted a costs order against her.

Citation
[2017] ZALCD 16
Parties
Applicant: Anne Marie Ohff; Respondent: Sarojini Balkaran N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Derivco
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2017
Case Number
464/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Separation Agreement, Prospects of Success, Late Referral
Labour Law Condonation Unfair Dismissal Separation Agreement Prospects of Success Late Referral

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

Parties

Anne Marie Ohff

Applicant

Sarojini Balkaran N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Derivco

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's refusal of condonation for late filing was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unfairly dismissed or retrenched for operational requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in referral.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's employment terminated by agreement on 28 February 2014 as recorded in the separation agreement. She was fully aware of this date and deliberately failed to disclose the agreement in her condonation application. Her explanation for the delay was unreasonable and unacceptable. The prospects of success were non-existent as she was neither retrenched nor dismissed for operational requirements. The first respondent's refusal of condonation was not reviewable, and the applicant's conduct warranted a costs order against her.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is dismissed with costs.