{"issue_text":"Whether the Designated Agent erred by acting as respondent's representative and showing bias","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"DA was messenger of correspondence between parties"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the Designated Agent erred by determining a matter with 4 instead of 5 applicants","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Peter Mareya was excluded from determination"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the third ground of review alleging misinterpretation of Labour Act provisions is vague","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Ground 3 simply alleged error without specifics"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's response should be struck off for late filing","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Response filed 11 days late without condonation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Five employees claimed unlawful termination and sought terminal benefits before a Designated Agent, who dismissed their claims. They applied to the Labour Court for review, alleging bias and legal errors. The employer opposed but its response was filed late without condonation and was struck off, leaving the application unopposed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases