CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Murray v Minister of Defence

South African legal case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 16, 2025
Entity authorityQ6939537 ↗
Source-derived summary

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC (with RB Engela); NJ Treurnicht SC (with AC Oosthuizen SC) appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

The court found that the right to fair labour practices, in section 23(1) of the Constitution, imports into the common-law contract of employment the general term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage its relationship of confidence and trust with its employee. The court thus imposed "a new general and contractual obligation on employers"—a duty of fair dealing with employees. In this the court had broken with the much-criticised common-law rule that "an employer is free to terminate the contract at any stage, for any reason or indeed for no reason or the worst possible reason, provided only that the requisite notice is given." The contract of employment, therefore, may now be relied upon where there is an overlap with section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), or where that section does not provide for a remedy.

The court also considered what constitutes constructive dismissal: that is to say, broadly speaking, resignation due to intolerable conditions at work.

Editorial summary

“Murray v Minister of Defence” enters the record as south African legal case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Murray, Minister and Defence can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2008—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Murray, Minister and Defence.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Murray v Minister of Defence” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Murray, Minister and Defence provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 16, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q6939537. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2008.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Murray v Minister of Defence”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Murray v Minister of Defence primary sources, Murray v Minister of Defence archive and Murray research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Murray v Minister of Defence”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Murray v Minister of Defence” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.