Van der Walt v Scholtz (J2653/98) [1999] ZALC 140 (1 September 1999)

Van der Walt v Scholtz (J2653/98) [1999] ZALC 140 (1 September 1999)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that she was dismissed. The evidence did not support her claim that the termination of employment was involuntary or that it was due to her pregnancy. The respondent's offer of continued casual employment and the applicant's failure to seek advice or complain at the relevant time undermined her version. The court concluded that the applicant resigned and was not dismissed, and therefore her claim of automatically unfair dismissal could not succeed.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 140
Parties
Applicant: Van der Walt, P J; Respondent: Burger Scholtz
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 1999
Case Number
J2653/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to legal advisers who acted prior to the hearing.
Judges
Brassey
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Pregnancy Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Maternity Leave, Costs Award
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Pregnancy Discrimination Burden of Proof Maternity Leave Costs Award

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van der Walt, P J

Applicant

Burger Scholtz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed or resigned from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged dismissal was automatically unfair due to pregnancy.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proof to establish dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that she was dismissed. The evidence did not support her claim that the termination of employment was involuntary or that it was due to her pregnancy. The respondent's offer of continued casual employment and the applicant's failure to seek advice or complain at the relevant time undermined her version. The court concluded that the applicant resigned and was not dismissed, and therefore her claim of automatically unfair dismissal could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to legal advisers who acted prior to the hearing.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to legal advisers who acted for the respondent prior to the hearing.