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 91
|
|
Walters v Gaylard NO and Others (JR940/08) [2015] ZALCJHB 91 (12 March 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JR940/08
DATE: 12 MARCH 2015
In the matter between:
BOBBY
WALTERS
...................................................................................................................
Applicant
And
JEANNE GAYLARD
N.O
...........................................................................................
First
Respondent
METAL & ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
......................................................................................
Second
Respondent
GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS (PTY)
LIMITED
...............................
Third
Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 12 March 2015
JUDGMENT: Application
for Leave to Appeal
GAIBIE AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to
appeal against the whole of the judgment of this court delivered on 7
February 2014, in
which I found that the applicant, Mr Bobby Walters
(‘the applicant’), had a reasonable expectation that his
fixed term
contract would be renewed, and consequent thereto ordered
the third respondent to pay the applicant compensation from 30 April
2007 to September 2007. The third respondent was also ordered to pay
the applicant’s costs.
[2] Although application for leave to
appeal was made timeously, this matter was only brought to my
attention during January 2015.
In the circumstances I wish to extend
an apology to the parties for the excessive delay in the
determination of this application.
[3] The test to be applied in this
application is the well-established threshold, and that is, whether
the Labour Appeal Court might
reasonably come to a different
conclusion [S v Smith (1) SACR at 576 (SCA)].
[4] The respondent contends that there
is a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different
conclusion than this
court, on the basis that I erred in my
conclusion that the applicant has a reasonable expectation that his
fixed term contract
would be renewed. The applicant has not opposed
the application for leave to appeal.
[5] I am satisfied, having considered
the respondents’ submissions that another court might come to a
different conclusion.
[6] In the circumstances, I make the
following order:
6.1. The application for leave to
appeal is granted on all grounds outlined in the application for
leave to appeal.
6.2. Costs shall be costs in the
appeal.
Gaibie AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
12 March 2015
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT: Leanne Pentz from
Waks Silent Incorporated
FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: Advocate
A.J. Nel
Instructed by Vorster Attorneys