Viljoen v Schumann VD Heever & Slabbert Attorneys (19463/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1047 (4 December 2014)

Viljoen v Schumann VD Heever & Slabbert Attorneys (19463/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1047 (4 December 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding liability for breach of mandate. The respondent was employed and dismissed by BP, and the existence of a vacant post similar to his previous position supported a reasonable likelihood of success in an unfair dismissal claim under the LRA. The respondent was not required to conclusively prove unfairness, only a reasonable likelihood of success. The damages suffered were within the contemplation of the parties, as any competent attorney would foresee harm arising from failure to refer a claim under the LRA. The grounds of appeal advanced by the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1047
Parties
Plaintiff: P J Viljoen; Defendant: Schumann VD Heever & Slabbert Attorneys
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2014
Case Number
19463/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability for Breach of Mandate
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Breach of Mandate, Unfair Dismissal, Reasonable Likelihood of Success, Operational Requirements, Onus of Proof, Damages Contemplation
Civil Procedure Labour Law Delict Breach of Mandate Unfair Dismissal Reasonable Likelihood of Success Operational Requirements Onus of Proof +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P J Viljoen

Plaintiff

Schumann VD Heever & Slabbert Attorneys

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability for Breach of Mandate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant established grounds for leave to appeal against the finding of liability for breach of mandate.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved a reasonable likelihood of success in an unfair dismissal claim under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of employment and the occurrence of dismissal were properly determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding liability for breach of mandate. The respondent was employed and dismissed by BP, and the existence of a vacant post similar to his previous position supported a reasonable likelihood of success in an unfair dismissal claim under the LRA. The respondent was not required to conclusively prove unfairness, only a reasonable likelihood of success. The damages suffered were within the contemplation of the parties, as any competent attorney would foresee harm arising from failure to refer a claim under the LRA. The grounds of appeal advanced by the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.