Leave to appealGross misdirectionQuestion of lawArbitrator's findings
Tags
Leave to appealGross misdirectionSection 98(10) of Labour Act
legislation
Statutes Cited
C
o
n
t
e
m
p
t
o
f
C
o
u
r
t
A
c
t
1
9
8
1
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
9
8
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
(
A
r
t
i
c
l
e
6
)
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
R
u
l
e
s
2
0
1
0
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
o
u
r
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
8
1
S
u
p
r
e
m
e
C
o
u
r
t
A
c
t
1
9
8
1
C
o
u
r
t
s
A
c
t
2
0
0
3
C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
f
o
r
m
A
c
t
2
0
0
5
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Use of phrase \"erred grossly\" in grounds of appeal"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the phrase \"erred grossly\" properly raises questions of law under section 98(10)","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent's grounds of appeal against arbitrator's factual findings"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in failing to remit damages issue back to arbitrator","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant's request for remittal, respondent's non-opposition"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Labour Court judgment that dismissed his preliminary point challenging the respondent's appeal against an arbitrator's factual findings. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's use of the phrase "erred grossly" in its grounds of appeal properly raised questions of law.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases