Van De Venter v MEC of Education: Free State Province (3545/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 185 (4 October 2012)

Van De Venter v MEC of Education: Free State Province (3545/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 185 (4 October 2012)

The court found that the applicant's claim for delictual damages against her employer was barred by section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, which provides an exclusive statutory remedy for occupational injuries. The applicant's injuries, sustained during the course of her employment as a result of a criminal act, constituted an occupational injury as defined by the Act. The applicant's delay in giving statutory notice was not justified by her explanations, and her proposed action had no prospects of success. Even if section 35 did not apply, the facts did not establish a duty of care on the part of the respondent sufficient to support a delictual claim....

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 185
Parties
Applicant: Susan Sharon van de Venter; Respondent: MEC of Education: Free State Province
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2012
Case Number
3545/2010
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Motion Proceedings; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; costs awarded to respondent.
Judges
Rampai
Legal Topics
Condonation for Non Compliance, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Occupational Injury, Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Prescription, Statutory Bar to Delictual Claims
Civil Procedure Labour Law Delict Condonation for Non Compliance Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Occupational Injury Compensation for Occupational Injuries Prescription +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Sharon van de Venter

Applicant

MEC of Education: Free State Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Motion Proceedings; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether good cause exists to condone the applicant's failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement under section 3 of Act 40/2002.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim is barred by section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130/1993.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be unreasonably prejudiced by condonation of the applicant's non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim for delictual damages against her employer was barred by section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, which provides an exclusive statutory remedy for occupational injuries. The applicant's injuries, sustained during the course of her employment as a result of a criminal act, constituted an occupational injury as defined by the Act. The applicant's delay in giving statutory notice was not justified by her explanations, and her proposed action had no prospects of success. Even if section 35 did not apply, the facts did not establish a duty of care on the part of the respondent sufficient to support a delictual claim....

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for condonation is refused.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the respondent's costs.