Archibald v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR680/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 9 (18 March 2003)

Archibald v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR680/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 9 (18 March 2003)

The court held that the absence of the respondents at the review hearing did not preclude the judge from considering the merits of the case. An unopposed review application does not entitle the applicant to relief by default; the judge must assess the merits to determine whether the award should be set aside. The applicant failed to address any substantive grounds for review or demonstrate why the court erred in its previous judgment. Consequently, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 9
Parties
Applicant: Tube Segaetsho Archibald; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: G.G. Sebotha (Commissioner); Respondent: Department of Public Works
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2003
Case Number
JR680/02
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
E. Revelas
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Leave to Appeal, Default Judgment, Unopposed Application
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Leave to Appeal Default Judgment Unopposed Application

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tube Segaetsho Archibald

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

G.G. Sebotha (Commissioner)

Respondent

Department of Public Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of the respondents at the review hearing precluded the judge from considering the merits of the case.
  2. 2 Whether an unopposed review application should be granted by default without consideration of the merits.
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the absence of the respondents at the review hearing did not preclude the judge from considering the merits of the case. An unopposed review application does not entitle the applicant to relief by default; the judge must assess the merits to determine whether the award should be set aside. The applicant failed to address any substantive grounds for review or demonstrate why the court erred in its previous judgment. Consequently, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.