Background

A claimant filed a claim against a defendant requesting that the court order it to make an occupational settlement classifying him as a teacher.

The court rejected the case.

The claimant appealed and the appeal court ruled that the settlement be made.

The defendant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court the defendant argued that the ruling had erred in the application of law as the court ignored his defence that the claimant did not meet the requirement of the settlement as he had not completed five years of work after obtaining his master's degree.

The court held that this argument was valid as the court ignored this defence despite it being a substantial one that could have changed the ruling outcome.

The court therefore repealed the ruling.