Sampson Associates (Pty) Ltd t/a: Interbrand Sampson v Shepherd and Others (JR 791/07) [2009] ZALC 142; [2010] 7 BLLR 746 (LC) (19 November 2009)

Sampson Associates (Pty) Ltd t/a: Interbrand Sampson v Shepherd and Others (JR 791/07) [2009] ZALC 142; [2010] 7 BLLR 746 (LC) (19 November 2009)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider relevant evidence, including the impact of the withdrawal of the first respondent's title, the arrangement of the year-end function, and the supply of financial information. The arbitrator did not assess the credibility of witnesses or resolve...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 142
Parties
Applicant: Sampson Associates (Pty) Ltd t/a: Interbrand Sampson; Respondent: Cities Shepherd; Respondent: E.L.E Myhill NO; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Case Number
JR 791/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; first respondent not constructively dismissed; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Fiduciary Duties, Conflict of Interest, Compensation Award, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constructive Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Fiduciary Duties Conflict of Interest Compensation Award Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Sampson Associates (Pty) Ltd t/a: Interbrand Sampson

Applicant

Cities Shepherd

Respondent

E.L.E Myhill NO

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was constructively dismissed by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent was rationally justifiable and free from misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded was justified on the evidence before the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider relevant evidence, including the impact of the withdrawal of the first respondent's title, the arrangement of the year-end function, and the supply of financial information. The arbitrator did not assess the credibility of witnesses or resolve contradictory versions, and failed to justify the compensation awarded. The court held that the withdrawal of the first respondent's title had no practical effect on his duties or authority, and that the applicant's conduct was not objectively calculated to coerce the first respondent into resigning. The first respondent set an unreasonable ultimatum and did not wait for the outcome of...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; first respondent not constructively dismissed; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 15 February 2006, issued by the second respondent, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The first respondent was not constructively dismissed by the applicant.