About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 34
|
|
Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd v Gunn and Others (JR 3095/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 34 (13 February 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO JR 3095/11
DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2015
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
MAESTRO HOUSING (PTY)
LTD
.............................................
APPLICANT
And
HARRY ARTHUR
GUNN
................................................
1ST
RESPONDENT
SELLO NANISO
N.O
......................................................
2ND
RESPONDENT
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
..............................
3RD
RESPONDENT
Date of ruling: 13 February 2015
RULING: APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
CELE J
[1] This is an application for leave to
appeal against a judgment delivered by this court on 30 September
2014, when the court dismissed
with costs, an application to review
and set aside an arbitration award made by the second respondent.
[2] The reasons for the judgment are
recorded in the written judgment delivered by this court and I do
intend to repeat them here.
[3] Leave to appeal is ordinarily
granted if there are reasonable prospects that another court (in this
instance, the Labour Appeal
Court) may come to a different
conclusion.
[4] The applicant has raised a number
of grounds on which the leave to appeal is sought. I have considered
the applicant’s
submissions and those of the respondent. The
applicant’s submissions relate to the matters that were
canvassed at the hearing
and dealt with in the judgment. To the
extent that the applicant submits that the court erred in finding
that the second respondent’s
finding is correct, the
commissioner’s decision was one to which a reasonable decision
maker could come, thus precluding
interference by the court. The
court is empowered to interfere with a commissioner’s decision
if and only if the decision
the commissioner considers fair is so
unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could come to. The
present case does not fall
into that category.
[5] It is in my view that there is no
reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different
conclusion.
I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal
is dismissed.
2. No costs order is made.
CELE J
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT