Erasmus v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR36/04) [2009] ZALCJHB 67 (15 September 2009)

30 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Appeal — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of review application — Section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 requires leave from Labour Court — Test for granting leave is whether there is a reasonable prospect of a different conclusion by another court — Court finds no reasonable prospects exist for a different outcome — Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZALCJHB 67
|

|

Erasmus v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR36/04) [2009] ZALCJHB 67 (15 September 2009)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
IN JOHANNESBURG
NOT
REPORTABLE
CASE
NO: JR36/04
In
the matter between:
COLIN
CLINTON ERASMUS
APPLICANT
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
1
ST
RESPONDENT
TERRY
MOODLEY
N.O.
2
ND
RESPONDENT
TELKOM
SA
LIMITED
3
RD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Molahlehi
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment handed
down on 19
th
February 2009, in which I dismissed the
review application of the applicant.
[2]
The applicant in this application for leave to appeal has raised
several points which he calls grounds for leave to appeal.
I do not
deem it necessary to repeat those points in this judgment.
[3]
In terms of
section 166(1)
of the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
, a
party whishing to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against a
judgment of the Labour Court has to obtain leave to do so from
the
Labour Court. The test to apply when considering whether or not to
grant leave to appeal is whether there is a reasonable prospect
that
another Court may come to a different conclusion to that of the
Labour Court.
[4]
I have carefully considered the points raised by the applicant in his
application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
I have
also considered my judgment including the submissions made by both
parties. Having regard to conspectus of the evidence
which was
presented before me and the legal principles applied, I am not
persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another
Court
could come to a different conclusion to the one reached by me in my
judgment.
[5]
In the circumstances the application for leave to appeal to the
Labour Appeal Court is dismissed with no order as to costs.
_______________
Molahlehi
J
Date
of Judgment   :
15
th
September 2009
(Application
decided on papers)