Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Smith v Mouille Grange Body Corporate and Others (C606/2022) [2024] ZALCCT 55 (18 November 2024)
Labour Court held that the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee, so the CCMA lacked jurisdiction and the review was dismissed.
Cape Union Mart International (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner: Compensation Fund (A69/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 614 (19 June 2024)
The High Court upheld Cape Union Mart’s appeal against a COIDA classification ruling and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for reclassification.
Goliath v SA Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (C581/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 10; (2023) 44 ILJ 185 (LC) (20 September 2022)
Labour Court review dismissed: a radio presenter for SABC was found to be an independent contractor, so the CCMA lacked jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal dispute.
Sosti Construction Projects (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 1616/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 74 (3 March 2015)
Labour Court review dismissed after finding the workers were employees and that their relationship with the employer ended in a dismissal.
Soni v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1843/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 519 (3 December 2014)
The court held that the Commissioner correctly applied the dominant impression test to the facts and evidence, considering the written agreement, the applicant's business practices, and his exclusion from normal employee activities. The evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant was an independent contractor and not an employee. Therefore, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The review application was dismissed as the jurisdictional ruling was not only reasonable but correct.
Source excerpt
Peter v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 798/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 265 (10 July 2013)
The court found that the Second Respondent correctly applied the dominant impression test and relevant statutory provisions to determine the true nature of the relationship between the Applicant and the Third Respondent. The evidence established that the Third Respondent was subject to the Applicant's supervision and control, was integrated into the Applicant's organisation, and was economically dependent on the Applicant. The deductions of PAYE, UIF, and SITE tax, issuance of payslips and IRP5 certificates, and operational requirements such as leave and consumables approval all pointed to an…
Source excerpt
Melomed Hospital Holdings Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 345/11) [2012] ZALCCT 34; (2013) 34 ILJ 920 (LC) (15 August 2012)
The Labour Court held that Melomed was the true employer of Dr Burger despite an incorporated vehicle, and dismissed the review of the unfair dismissal award.
2 Productions and Another v Klugman (A605/09) [2011] ZAWCHC 419 (4 November 2011)
High Court appeal on a rolled vehicle accident upheld negligence under res ipsa loquitur and found the first appellant vicariously liable.
J & J Freeze Trust v Statutory Council for the Squid and Related Fisheries of SA and Others (P530/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 61; [2011] 11 BLLR 1068 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 2966 (LC) (20 July 2011)
The court found that the objective facts established an employment relationship between the applicant and the third respondent. The written contract, probationary period, permanent appointment, and three-month notice period indicated employment rather than independent contracting. The third respondent was economically dependent on the applicant, managed the crew on behalf of the applicant, and was integrated into the applicant’s business. The applicant’s witnesses were found unreliable, and the respondent’s version was more probable. Industry practice was not determinative, and each case must…
Source excerpt
Hlanzeka Cleaning Company (Pty) Ltd v Ngwane NO and Others (D615/08) [2011] ZALCD 26 (29 June 2011)
The court found that the applicant's conduct in referring the employees to Adecco, without proper consultation or ensuring their continued employment, amounted to a dismissal. The applicant unilaterally changed the terms of engagement for casual employees who had a long-standing relationship with the company. The evidence showed that the employees were informed there was no more work for them, and the attempt to shift responsibility to Adecco failed, leaving them without prospects of employment. The dismissal was procedurally unfair as no proper process was followed. The commissioner’s findin…
Source excerpt
Explore more
