Pedlar v Performing Arts Council of Free State (J157/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 45 (24 March 2021)

Pedlar v Performing Arts Council of Free State (J157/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 45 (24 March 2021)

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-created, as he failed to act promptly after being placed on precautionary suspension and only sought relief on the eve of the disciplinary hearing. The referral to the CCMA under section 188A(11) did not automatically stay the disciplinary proceedings, and the applicant did not provide sufficient explanation for his delay. The court held that the requirements for urgency were not met and that the application should be struck off the roll for want of urgency. Costs were awarded against the applicant, following the general rule that costs follow the result.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 45
Parties
Applicant: Arthur Peter Pedlar; Respondent: Performing Arts Council of Free State; Respondent: Cindy Dickens N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Case Number
J157/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Disciplinary Enquiry, Protected Disclosure, Jurisdictional Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Disciplinary Enquiry Protected Disclosure Jurisdictional Ruling

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Peter Pedlar

Applicant

Performing Arts Council of Free State

Respondent

Cindy Dickens N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to interdict the disciplinary enquiry is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether a section 188A(11) referral to the CCMA ousts the jurisdiction of the employer to proceed with an internal disciplinary enquiry.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant qualifies for protection as a whistleblower under the Protected Disclosure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-created, as he failed to act promptly after being placed on precautionary suspension and only sought relief on the eve of the disciplinary hearing. The referral to the CCMA under section 188A(11) did not automatically stay the disciplinary proceedings, and the applicant did not provide sufficient explanation for his delay. The court held that the requirements for urgency were not met and that the application should be struck off the roll for want of urgency. Costs were awarded against the applicant, following the general rule that costs follow the result.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs.