Intent matters: dishonesty and the PathCare judgment
A two-page MS Inc. case note on the evidence of intent required when an employer dismisses an employee for dishonesty.
Held
The Labour Appeal Court upheld the finding that the employee had been negligent but that the employer had not proved dishonesty.
The firm’s case note revisits DRS Dietrich, Voigt & MIA v Bennet CM N.O and Others [2019] ZALAC 2. It distinguishes an incorrect overtime claim from proven intent to deceive and discusses the consequences for a dismissal framed as dishonesty.
The original two-page document shared on LinkedIn is available in the reader below. The case note prints a different citation; the court record identifies the decision as [2019] ZALAC 2, delivered on 27 February 2019.
This summary is general commentary on a decision of public record. It does not constitute legal advice, no attorney-client relationship arises from it, and nothing in it should be read as an indication of the outcome of any other matter. Please contact us if you require advice on a particular matter.
The document
-
MS Inc. case note (2 pages)
PDF · 1.3 MB · 2 pages
Open
MS Inc. case note (2 pages), PDF
Download MS Inc. case note (2 pages)
Source: www.linkedin.com
This is a page-by-page preview of the document. The PDF itself is the authoritative version and is the better one to read with a screen reader — use the download link above.
This document cannot be displayed in your browser. Download it to read it.