In October 2025, the Labour court concluded that the broker that serviced high profile wealth clients had reasonable reasons for dismissal of a wealth manager and that the employee’s explanation for her misconduct was unacceptable. The court explained that the arbitrator should have considered what was reasonable and fair for an employer in the applicant’s
On 28 March 2025, the Labour Court delivered its decision in Makombe v Cape Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists. The court held that the claimant pastor was constructively dismissed – even though she resigned of her own accord. The judgment confirms that an employer can be held liable not only for direct mistreatment, but also
This blog is co-authored by Mehjubeen Karjieker, candidate attorney.
In May 2025 the Constitutional Court held that, in truly exceptional circumstances, it will rescind its own earlier orders to cure a grave injustice. The employee in the case persuaded the Constitutional Court that the Labour Court had erred in failing to decide a key issue
This blog is co-authored by Jose de Faria (Candidate Attorney) and Saajidah Simjee (Candidate Attorney).
Employers undertaking restructuring or outsourcing should take careful note of an August 2025 judgment by the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) wherein it was found that, due to the automatic nature of section 197 transfers between employers, employees need not
This blog is co-authored by Caroline Cotton, candidate attorney.
The Constitutional Court has handed down a unanimous judgment in Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (11 September 2025) that will reshape South Africa’s surname-change regime and deepen equality jurisprudence. Below we distil the essentials and outline practical implications for employers, financial
The question of how employers should treat employees working beyond a normal or agreed retirement age in South Africa has become increasingly complex, particularly in light of a December 2024 sharply divided judgment of the Constitutional Court, in a 4:1:4 split.
The dispute at the heart of this Constitutional Court case revolved around section 187(2)(b)