Van Eeden v Hyprop Investments Limited and Others (JR2519/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 118 (15 March 2018)
The court found that neither the appellant's application for leave to appeal nor the respondent's conditional cross appeal demonstrated reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for referral to the Labour Appeal Court. The respondent's condonation application was granted due to the unopposed nature...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] ZALCJHB 118
- Parties
- Applicant: Natasja Van Eeden; Respondent: Hyprop Investments Limited; Respondent: WW Ferreira N.O.; Respondent: CCMA
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2519/15
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Both the appellant's and respondent's applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. The respondent's condonation application is granted.
- Judges
- N Moni
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Prospects of Success
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Natasja Van Eeden
Applicant
Hyprop Investments Limited
Respondent
WW Ferreira N.O.
Respondent
CCMA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
- 2 Whether the respondent's application for condonation should be granted.
- 3 Whether the respondent's conditional cross appeal for leave to appeal should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither the appellant's application for leave to appeal nor the respondent's conditional cross appeal demonstrated reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for referral to the Labour Appeal Court. The respondent's condonation application was granted due to the unopposed nature and the explanation provided for the delay. Consequently, both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Court Disposition
Both the appellant's and respondent's applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. The respondent's condonation application is granted.
Orders
- The respondent's application for condonation is granted.
- The appellant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case No: JR2519/15
In the matter between
NATASJA VAN EEDEN
Applicant
and
HYPROP INVESTMENTS LIMITED
First Respondent
WW FERREIRA N.O.
Second Respondent
CCMA
Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 15 March 2018
JUDGMENT – LEAVE TO APPEAL
MONI. AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal by the appellant, and application for condonation and cross appeal by the respondent against the judgment of this court handed down on 22 November 2017. The appellant’s application is opposed.
[2] In the circumstances wherein the respondent’s reply was due during the festive season and was not opposed, the condonation application is granted.
[3] Having considered the grounds for leave to appeal and cross appeal, I conclude that both applications lack reasonable prospects of success or some other compelling reason why the matter should be referred to the Labour Appeal Court.
Order
In the premises the following order is made:
1. The respondent’s application for condonation is granted;
2. The appellant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
3. The respondent’s application for leave to appeal only if the appellant’s application is granted is dismissed;
4. There is no order as to costs.
_____________________
N Moni
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Submissions:
For the Applicant: Du Pre Le Roux Attorneys
For the Respondent: Larry Dave Inc.