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
Bragan Chemicals (Pty) Ltd v Meyer and Another (J 802/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 219 (9 August 2021)
The Labour Court enforced a restraint of trade and confidentiality undertaking against a purchasing manager who joined a competitor and had access to confidential business information.
SAMWU v Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2355/2019) [2021] ZALCJHB 212 (26 July 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed a review against a CCMA award confirming dismissal for misconduct, finding the commissioner’s decision rational and fair.
De Heus (Pty) Ltd v South African Commercial and Catering Workers Union (SACCAWU) and Others (J 685/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 149; (2021) 42 ILJ 887 (LC) (7 September 2020)
The Labour Court confirmed a rule nisi, finding an unprotected strike over Covid-19 workplace safety concerns and awarding costs against SACCAWU.
Mogale City Local Municipality v Matlala and Others (JR756/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 282 (14 July 2016)
The Labour Court granted leave to appeal after dismissing a review of an arbitration award involving alleged meter tampering and collective agreement rights.
Gradwell v Bidpaper Plus (Pty) Ltd and Others (EL46/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 64; (2012) ILJ 33 2794 (ECG) (21 August 2012)
The court held that section 37D of the Pension Funds Act allows a pension fund to withhold benefits where the employer alleges facts which, if proved, would amount to theft, fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct. The employer's allegations that the applicant passed confidential information to a competitor and entered into arrangements detrimental to the employer, if proven, would constitute serious misconduct and dishonesty. The court found that such conduct necessarily implies dishonesty as contemplated by section 37D. Therefore, the pension fund's decision to withhold the applicant's benefits pe…
Source excerpt
Value Logistics Ltd v Weinberg and Another (54119/07) [2012] ZAGPPHC 17; (2012) 33 ILJ 849 (GNP) (29 February 2012)
The court held that two former employees breached fiduciary and contractual duties by selling company vehicles, manipulating invoices, and failing to account for proceeds.
Trentyre (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Another (CA 4/2011) [2011] ZALAC 26; [2012] 5 BLLR 419 (LAC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1438 (LAC) (12 December 2011)
The Labour Appeal Court refused condonation for the late filing of the petition for leave to appeal. The applicant failed to provide a full, cogent, and reasonable explanation for the excessive delay, and the evidence presented was contradictory and untruthful. The delay prejudiced the employee and was entirely attributable to the applicant. On the merits, the Court found that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The commissioner correctly found that the employee was under the influence of alcohol but not incapacitated, and that dismissal was disproportionate…
Source excerpt
Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D669/09) [2008] ZALCD 17 (17 October 2008)
The Labour Court dismissed Lewis Stores’ review, finding no basis to overturn the award concerning alleged insubordination and misconduct over a group grievance.
Xaba v Revlon (Pty) Ltd (JR1291/2006) [2008] ZALCJHB 16 (19 March 2008)
The Labour Court refused condonation for a late leave-to-appeal application, finding the 56-day delay inadequately explained and the prospects of success insufficient.
Phibro Health (Pty) Ltd v Groenewald and Others (12392/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 255 (2 November 2007)
The court found that the second respondent, with the assistance of the first respondent, engaged in unlawful and unfair competition against the applicant by utilising confidential information, diverting customers, and encouraging applicant's employees to assist competitors using applicant's resources. The first respondent breached fiduciary duties and acted in conflict with the applicant's interests. Despite the applicant entering a distribution agreement with Virbac RSA (Pty) Ltd and retrenching staff, it retained a protectable interest in its customer base and trade connections. The respond…
Source excerpt
Explore more
