Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2018] ZALCJHB 92

Mdluli v International Union for Conservation of Nature (JS457/2016)

Mdluli v International Union for Conservation of Nature (JS457/2016) [2018] ZALCJHB 92 (6 March 2018)

The Labour Court ordered the applicant’s former attorneys to pay costs de bonis propriis after finding their failure to timeously refer the claim was grossly negligent.

  • Condonation
  • Costs De Bonis Propris
  • Gross Negligence Of Attorneys
  • Costs-de-bonis-propris
  • Gross-negligence-of-attorneys
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALCJHB 403

Mdluli v International Union for Conservation of Nature (JS457/2016)

Mdluli v International Union for Conservation of Nature (JS457/2016) [2017] ZALCJHB 403 (7 November 2017)

The court found that the primary cause of the late referral was the negligence of the applicant's previous attorneys, who failed to act timeously and misadvised the applicant regarding the applicable time periods. The applicant maintained reasonable contact and was misled about the status of her matter. The court was satisfied that the applicant's explanation for the delay was reasonable and that she had some prospects of success in her unfair dismissal claim. The respondent did not demonstrate specific prejudice. Accordingly, condonation for the late referral was granted. Given the conduct o…

  • Condonation
  • Unfair Dismissal
  • Late Referral
  • Retrenchment
  • Costs De Bonis Propris
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2011] ZALCJHB 250

Ramadiba v Limpopo Legislature and Others (J 2568/2010)

Ramadiba v Limpopo Legislature and Others (J 2568/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 250 (20 December 2011)

The court found that the applicant's attorney's failure to notify the First Respondent's attorneys of the change in hearing date was a lapse in professional judgment but did not rise to the level of vexatious or grossly negligent conduct required for a costs order de bonis propris. The circumstances, including the Registrar's advice and lack of response from the First Respondent's attorneys, could have led to a false sense of security. The court held that the appropriate costs order was on an attorney and client scale, not de bonis propris. Furthermore, the applicant's main application was fo…

  • Rescission Of Judgment
  • Costs De Bonis Propris
  • Attorney And Client Costs
  • Section 165 Lra
  • Ccma Jurisdiction
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.