Abrahams v Murray & Roberts Power and Energy (JS409/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 382 (19 October 2021)

Abrahams v Murray & Roberts Power and Energy (JS409/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 382 (19 October 2021)

The respondent's delay in filing the statement of response was minimal and caused by issues with the completeness and legibility of the statement of claim served by fax. The applicant failed to comply with the requirements for proving service by fax and did not suffer any recognizable prejudice from the delay. The opposition to the condonation application was unreasonable, given the lack of prejudice and the flexibility afforded by the Labour Court rules and practice manual. The interests of justice required that condonation be granted, and fairness dictated that the applicant should bear the costs of the opposition due to his unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 382
Parties
Applicant: Brandon Kim Abrahams; Respondent: Murray & Roberts Power and Energy
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Case Number
JS409/20
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Reasons for Order Following Oral Hearing
Outcome
Condonation granted for the late filing of the statement of response; applicant ordered to pay costs of opposition.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Unreasonable Opposition, Costs Award, Labour Court Rules
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Unreasonable Opposition Costs Award Labour Court Rules

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brandon Kim Abrahams

Applicant

Murray & Roberts Power and Energy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Reasons for Order Following Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the respondent's late filing of the statement of response.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's opposition to the condonation application was reasonable and whether a costs order should be made.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's delay in filing the statement of response was minimal and caused by issues with the completeness and legibility of the statement of claim served by fax. The applicant failed to comply with the requirements for proving service by fax and did not suffer any recognizable prejudice from the delay. The opposition to the condonation application was unreasonable, given the lack of prejudice and the flexibility afforded by the Labour Court rules and practice manual. The interests of justice required that condonation be granted, and fairness dictated that the applicant should bear the costs of the opposition due to his unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the late filing of the statement of response; applicant ordered to pay costs of opposition.

Orders

  • The late filing of the statement of response is condoned.
  • The applicant, Brandon Kim Abrahams, is ordered to pay the costs of opposition on a party and party scale.