Skip to main content

Article 4/2023

What are some of the guidelines to be taken into account to determine the degree of disability when an employee sustained an injury at the workplace?

_____________________________________

In Department of Labour: Compensation Commissioner v Botha (2022) 3 SALLR 17 (SCA), our
supreme court of appeal, inter alia, adopted the following approach:

  • it is important to realise that, in terms of s49(2)(a) of COIDA, if an employee sustained an injury
    in Schedule 2, such employee is presumed to be permanently disabled to the degree as set out
    in the second column
  • what is the meaning of the sixth item in the first column of Schedule 2, to the effect that, if an
    employee suffered an injury not listed in such schedule, he would be deemed to be 100%
    disabled?

    • the SCA indicated that not every injury not listed in Schedule 2 entails a 100% disablement
      and the extent of disability falling outside of Schedule 2 must be determined in the light of
      the specific facts of the specific case and according to medical evidence

August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?