| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:12:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:12:07Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2009-03-31 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2009] ZACC 10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2009] 6 BLLR 517 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | (2009) 30 ILJ 1521 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2010 (2) SA 269 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2009 (8) BCLR 779 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3578 | |
| dc.title | Netherburn Engineering CC t/a Netherburn Ceramics v Mudau NO and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT01/09 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT01/09 | en |
| dc.contributor.judge | The Court | |
| dc.date.judgment | 1 April 2009 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3578/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%2833%20Kb%29-13447.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | At a CCMA hearing, the commissioner refused, in terms of section 140(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, to allow the applicant to be represented by an attorney. After unsuccessfully challenging this in the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court, this Court handed down a unanimous judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal. The Court held that, although section 140(1) of the Labour Relations Act raises a constitutional question, it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter, because section 140 was repealed nearly seven years ago, and there appears no longer to be a live dispute between the parties. In the result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Labour Appeal Court: Netherburn Engineering CC t/a Netherburn Ceramics v Mudau NO and Another (JA 1/05) [2008] ZALAC 13 (5 December 2008). THe case was previously heard in the Labour Court: Netherburn Engineering CC t/a Netherburn Ceramics v Mudau & Others (2003) 24 ILJ 1712 (LC). The application for leave to appeal was dismissed |