Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2018-07-28T18:49:14Z
dc.date.available 2018-07-28T18:49:14Z
dc.identifier.citation [2019] ZACC 17
dc.identifier.citation 2019 (7) BCLR 826 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation (2019) 40 ILJ 1731 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation [2019] 11 BLLR 1189 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/36563
dc.title Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited en_US
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT29/18
dc.date.hearing 14 November 2018
dc.contributor.judge Basson AJ
dc.date.judgment 30 April 2019
dc.link.judgment https://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/36563/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2030%20April%202019.pdf?sequence=46&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 — dismissal for operational requirements — application in terms of section 189A(13) brought outside of time limits — condonation refused — failed legal strategy alone not sufficient to show good cause — labour matters are expeditious in nature — section 189A(13)(d) compensation remedy not a stand-alone remedy and dependent on the inappropriateness of remedies (a)-(c)
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Labour Appeal Court: Edcon Ltd v Steenkamp and Others (JA125/2017) [2017] ZALAC 81; [2018] 3 BLLR 230 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 531 (LAC) (18 December 2017). See also the judgment of Johannesburg Labour Court: Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Ltd (J294/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 487 (13 June 2017). The matter is a sequel to protracted litigation between the parties that came before the Constitutional Court; see the earlier related judgment: Steenkamp and Others v Edcon Limited (CCT46/15, CCT47/15) [2016] ZACC 1; (2016) 37 ILJ 564 (CC); 2016 (3) BCLR 311 (CC); [2016] 4 BLLR 335 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 251 (CC) (22 January 2016).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account