Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-23T21:14:32Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-23T21:14:32Z
dc.identifier.citation [2018] ZACC 4
dc.identifier.citation 2018 (4) BCLR 483 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation (2018) 39 ILJ 987 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation [2018] 5 BLLR 431 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3896
dc.title September and Others v CMI Business Enterprises CC en_US
dc.title.alternative CCT279/16
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT279/16
dc.date.hearing 10 August 2017
dc.contributor.judge Theron J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Zondo DCJ dissenting judgment
dc.date.judgment 27 February 2018
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3896/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2027%20February%202018.pdf?sequence=36&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration — rule 16 prior to 2015 amendment — allows courts, in exceptional circumstances, to consider evidence emanating from conciliation proceedings — evidence as to the nature of the dispute conciliated is not privileged 2 Rescission of default judgment — dispute of automatically unfair constructive dismissal conciliated — Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute — default judgment not erroneously granted
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Labour Appeal Court: CMI Business Enterprise CC v September, unreported judgment of the Labour Appeal Court, Case No JA 111/2014 (26 October 2016). The case was previously heard in the Johannesburg Labour Court. See September v CMI Business Enterprise CC Case No JS 1107/11 (12 February 2013) and CMI Business Enterprises CC v September and Others; In Re: September and Others v CMI Business Enterprises CC (1107/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 228 (26 June 2014).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account