Skip to main content

Article 5/2023

Throughout an employee’s career, spanning approximately 40 years, he worked around noisy, heavy machinery. Following a hearing assessment when he was 59, he was declared to be permanently unfit for his normal duties due to noise-induced hearing loss. He was, therefore, forced to retire permanently before the age of 65.

What is the content of the presumption entailing that such noise-induced hearing loss took place in the course of the employee’s employment?

_____________________________________

In Knoetze v Rand Mutual Assurance (2022) 33 SALLR 4 (DGJ), it is submitted that the high court
followed the following correct approach:

  • s65(1) of COIDA contemplates two kinds of diseases:
    • a disease mentioned in the first column of Schedule 3 (a listed occupational disease) and
    • a disease other than a disease contemplated as a listed disease (a so-called non-listed
      disease)
  • hearing impairment (being a listed occupational disease), in terms of s66 of COIDA, is presumed
    to have arisen out of and in the course of employment unless the contrary is proven (which, in
    casu, could not be proven by Rand Mutual Assurance, licensed for assessing and making
    payment of claims for compensation)

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?