Anderson and Others v Global Media Services (C250/18 & C267/18) [2020] ZALCCT 22 (25 August 2020)

Anderson and Others v Global Media Services (C250/18 & C267/18) [2020] ZALCCT 22 (25 August 2020)

The court found that the factual basis for the proposed amendment had already been pleaded and that the amendment sought only to place the issues before the court in the correct legal context. There was no prejudice to the applicants that could not be remedied by an order for costs or postponement. The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, holding that the real issues between the parties should be decided and that procedural objections should not prevent the amendment where no irreparable prejudice is shown.

Citation
[2020] ZALCCT 22
Parties
Applicant: Leigh Anderson; Applicant: Shuan Clinton Allen; Applicant: Patrick Langeveldt; Respondent: Global Media Services
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Case Number
C250/18 & C267/18
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Opposed Application to Amend Statement in Reply
Outcome
The respondent's application to amend its Statement of Reply is granted.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Section 189a Lra, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Procedural Fairness, Operational Requirements Dismissal
Labour Law Amendment of Pleadings Section 189a Lra Jurisdiction of Labour Court Procedural Fairness Operational Requirements Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leigh Anderson

Applicant

Shuan Clinton Allen

Applicant

Patrick Langeveldt

Applicant

Global Media Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Opposed Application to Amend Statement in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be permitted to amend its Statement in Reply to allege the applicability of section 189A of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the procedural fairness of the dismissals under section 189A.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the factual basis for the proposed amendment had already been pleaded and that the amendment sought only to place the issues before the court in the correct legal context. There was no prejudice to the applicants that could not be remedied by an order for costs or postponement. The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, holding that the real issues between the parties should be decided and that procedural objections should not prevent the amendment where no irreparable prejudice is shown.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application to amend its Statement of Reply is granted.

Orders

  • The respondent’s application to amend its Statement of Reply as set out in its Notice of intention to amend dated 6 February 2019 is granted.
  • The amended Statement of Reply must be filed at Court within 10 days of this order.