GilesFiles, Author at GilesFiles

Majoritarianism principle examined: Operational requirements

Posted by GilesFiles | Jan 23, 2020 | 2020, 2020, Appeals, Bill of Rights, Collective Bargaining (LRL 5), Competition, ConCourt judges, Constitutional Court, Courts, Dismissal: operational requirements, Dismissal: Procedural issues, Dispute Resolution (LRL 3), Edwin Cameron, JC Froneman, Judges, Labour Relations, Labour Relations Act 1995, Landmark judgments, Legal Practice, LRA Chpt: 3: s11-63 Collective Bargaining, LRA Chpt: 7: s112-184 Dispute resolution, LRA Chpt: 8a: s185-197B Dismissals, Mining, Parties, Retired judges, Sectors, Statutes (LRL 2) - work law, Termination (LRL 8), Topics, Trade unions |

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Majoritarianism principle discussed: Fundamental rights

Posted by GilesFiles | Jan 23, 2020 | 2020, Appeals, Bill of Rights, Collective Bargaining (LRL 5), ConCourt judges, Constitutional Court, Courts, Dismissal: general, Dismissal: operational requirements, Dismissal: Procedural issues, Dispute Resolution (LRL 3), Judges, L Theron, Labour Relations, Labour Relations Act 1995, Legal Practice, LRA Chpt: 3: s11-63 Collective Bargaining, LRA Chpt: 7: s112-184 Dispute resolution, LRA Chpt: 8a: s185-197B Dismissals, Mining, Parties, Sectors, Statutes (LRL 2) - work law, Termination (LRL 8), Topics, Trade unions |

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Reinstatement order reversed: Appealing interim order

Posted by GilesFiles | Jan 14, 2020 | 2020, Appeals, Common Law, Courts, Dismissal: lawfulness, Dispute Resolution (LRL 3), erroneously granted, erroneously sought, Financial services, High Court, High Court judges, Interdicts and rule nisi, Judges, Jurisdiction and powers, Labour Relations, Labour Relations Act 1995, Legal Practice, LRA Chpt: 7: s112-184 Dispute resolution, LRA Chpt: 8a: s185-197B Dismissals, Orders, PA Meyer, Parties, Private enterprises, Reinstatement, Sectors, Specific performance, Statutes (LRL 2) - work law, Termination (LRL 8), Topics |

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Restraint provisions dissected: Discharging onus?

Posted by GilesFiles | Jan 7, 2020 | 2020, Acting LC judges, Applications, Clothing & textiles, Common Law, Courts, Evidence and onus, Evidentiary burden, Interdicts and rule nisi, joinder of parties, Judges, Labour Court, Labour Court judges, Legal Practice, Orders, Parties, Plascon-Evans rule, Private enterprises, Refused, Sean Snyman, Sectors, Topics, Urgency |

For subscribers only Whilst some judgment summaries are available to all, this judgment summary is reserved for subscribers only. If you are already a subscriber, you can login to see this judgment summary. If you cannot login,...

Emotional shock principles: Amicus curiae application

Posted by GilesFiles | Dec 18, 2019 | 2019, 2019, amicus curiae, appeal, Appeals, Bill of Rights, Common Law, Courts, Dignity equality freedom, Granted, Judges, Jurisdiction and powers, Landmark judgments, LE Leach, Legal Practice, Orders, Philosophy and economics, SCA judges, Supreme Court of Appeal, Topics |

R K v Minister of Basic Education Emotional shock principles considered in great detail by the SCA and stressed the importance of a detectable psychiatric injury as being the foundation for such claims. “It is clear from...

Author: GilesFiles

Majoritarianism principle examined: Operational requirements

Majoritarianism principle discussed: Fundamental rights

Reinstatement order reversed: Appealing interim order

Restraint provisions dissected: Discharging onus?

Emotional shock principles: Amicus curiae application