Herholdt v Nedbank Limited

Andre Herholdt, employed by Nedbank Limited as a financial planner, was dismissed for dishonesty arising from his failure to disclose a conflict of interest. A client, Mr John Smith, executed two wills in which Herholdt (and later his life partner) were made beneficiaries. Nedbank’s conflict-of-interest policy required disclosure of such benefits to a line manager. Despite being advised by both a colleague involved in will drafting and his regional manager that disclosure was required, Herholdt failed to inform his line manager. He challenged his dismissal at the CCMA, where the arbitrator found the dismissal unfair. Nedbank successfully reviewed the award in the Labour Court, and the Labour Appeal Court upheld that decision. Herholdt then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case is a leading authority on the scope of judicial review of CCMA arbitration awards. It clarified and restated the Sidumo test, firmly rejecting attempts to broaden review grounds beyond those in s 145 of the LRA. Herholdt v Nedbank is frequently cited for confirming that review focuses on the reasonableness of the outcome, not the correctness of the reasoning, and that factual errors are only relevant if they render the result unreasonable.