Hercules v Subtech (Pty) Ltd [2020] NAHCMD 223 (12 June 2020)

Hercules v Subtech (Pty) Ltd [2020] NAHCMD 223 (12 June 2020)

Leave to appeal is declined because the court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The amendment sought would cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff, and the real issue is the liability of the employer, not the technical description of the defendant. The defendant was described as it represented itself, and substance must prevail over form.

Citation
[2020] NAHCMD 223
Parties
Plaintiff: Norbert Hercules; Defendant: Subtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Subtech Group (now cited as Namibia Subtech Diving and Marine (Pty) Ltd)
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/employment / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Leave to appeal declined.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Misdescription of Parties, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment Law Amendment of Pleadings Misdescription of Parties Leave to Appeal Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norbert Hercules

Plaintiff

Subtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Subtech Group (now cited as Namibia Subtech Diving and Marine (Pty) Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/employment / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the refusal to amend the plea and file an additional special plea
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was misdescribed or wrongly cited
  3. 3 Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is declined because the court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The amendment sought would cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff, and the real issue is the liability of the employer, not the technical description of the defendant. The defendant was described as it represented itself, and substance must prevail over form.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal declined.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is declined.
  • Applicant/Defendant shall pay the litigious out of pocket taxed expenses incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing his opposition to the leave to appeal.