The appellant, Phillip Henry Groom, was employed by the respondent from 1981 until his dismissal in December 2015 for alleged operational requirements. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA and, after conciliation failed, instituted proceedings in the Labour Court in April 2016. While the litigation was pending, the respondent passed a special resolution for voluntary liquidation in December 2016, without the appellant’s knowledge. A liquidator was appointed in February 2017, but notice of the liquidation and appointment was only published in the Government Gazette in July 2017, when the appellant first acquired actual knowledge. About six months after the liquidator’s appointment, the appellant gave notice in terms of section 359(2)(a) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 that he intended to continue with the Labour Court proceedings. The respondent later alleged non-compliance with section 359 and contended that the claim was deemed abandoned. It brought a Rule 11 application in the Labour Court, which succeeded. The Labour Court declared the unfair dismissal claim abandoned and dismissed it, struck the appellant’s counter-application seeking relief under section 359(2)(b) for lack of jurisdiction, and made a costs order against the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Labour Appeal Court.
The full final order of the Labour Appeal Court is not available from the provided judgment text, as the reasons and dispositive paragraphs are truncated before the conclusion of the appeal.
This case is significant for clarifying the interaction between labour litigation and insolvency law, particularly the application of section 359 of the Companies Act to unfair dismissal claims. It underscores that the deeming of abandonment is not absolute, that the provision exists primarily for the protection of liquidators, and that procedural expediency must be balanced with fairness and access to justice in labour disputes.