Search our database of court papers and judgments.
TTo find what you are looking you can browse the complete list, browse by category or search by keywords or terms
like for example: 'asbestosis'.
Enter your keyword and click on the search button. Use the date range if you know the time period within which the case was heard or leave empty if you don’t know the date.
Click below to select a category, you will be able to browse all posts in the category you have selected.
M K Murugan (Applicant) brought an application seeking leave to amend his Notice of Motion. The Minister of Labour, Director-General of Labour and Compensation Commissioner (Respondents) contended that as the application had been previously withdrawn, the applicant has no right to seek to amend the Notice of Motion, and the application for an amendment should be dismissed with costs. At issue was whether the former attorney of the applicant had been given authority by the applicant to file an notice of withdrawal. Further at issue was whether section 33 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA) prevented the applicant from relinquishing his rights to benefit in terms of the Act.
After 39 years of working on a gold mine and dealing with noisy machinery, Knoetze sustained hearing loss and was medically boarded. He lodged a claim for compensation with Rand Mutual Assurance (RMA), which repudiated the claim on the basis that Knoetze had experienced rapid hearing loss which was inconsistent with occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Knoetze objected to RMA’s decision in terms of s 91 of COIDA. The Tribunal hearing for his objection held that Knoetze had failed to show that his hearing loss resulted from his employment and not any other possible cause. As such, his objection was dismissed.
Ilana Joubert ( Applicant) sought leave to amend pleadings in proceedings instituted against Buscor Proprietary Limited (Respondent). The Applicant claimed for compensation for damages following the death of her husband (the deceased) who was employed as an electrician by a close corporation which was in turn contracted by the Respondent to carry out electrical repairs and maintenance of equipment. The Respondent instructed and/or permitted the deceased to enter a submersible pump with limited oxygen and hazardous chemicals, resulting in the deceased's injury and subsequent death.
Industrial Health Resource Group & others v the Minister of Labour and others
Occupational Health and Safety
2015
This matter deals with whether the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) allows for the workers and dependants of the deceased to be furnished with a copy of the report of an inquiry envisaged in section 32(9).
AMCU (Applicants) launched an opposed application against the Minister of Mineral Resoucres and Energy and the Chief Inspector of Mining (Respondents) seeking implementation of detailed regulations and measures in the mining industry to ensure that mineworkers and their surrounding mining communities are protected against Covid-19 in accordance with sections 9 and 49 of the Mine Health and Safety Act, 26 of 1996 (MHSA).
RSI and LHL attorneys are certified to represent over one thousand persons who were affected by the listeriosis outbreak of 2017/2018 in a class action aginst Tiger Brands.