Autopax Passengers Services (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport & Allied Workers Union (J900/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 88 (5 August 2008)

Autopax Passengers Services (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport & Allied Workers Union (J900/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 88 (5 August 2008)

The court found that the applicant was aware, prior to serving the urgent application, that the respondent had withdrawn its notice of the secondary strike. The applicant's failure to disclose all relevant facts in its founding affidavit was disturbing and appeared to be an attempt to mislead the court. There was no legal basis for the respondent to be liable for the reserved costs, as the danger the application sought to address no longer existed once the strike notice was withdrawn. The application for costs was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made in respect of the postponed application, as it was unopposed and both parties had an ongoing relationship.

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 88
Parties
Applicant: Autopax Passengers Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Transport & Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2008
Case Number
J900/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Postponement of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed. No order as to costs in respect of the postponed application.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Secondary Strike, Costs Award, Urgent Application Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Secondary Strike Costs Award Urgent Application Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autopax Passengers Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Transport & Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Postponement of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for the costs reserved on 5 June 2006 after the applicant postponed its urgent application to declare a secondary strike unprotected.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was justified in proceeding with the urgent application after the respondent withdrew the secondary strike notice.
  3. 3 Whether there should be an order as to costs in respect of the postponed application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware, prior to serving the urgent application, that the respondent had withdrawn its notice of the secondary strike. The applicant's failure to disclose all relevant facts in its founding affidavit was disturbing and appeared to be an attempt to mislead the court. There was no legal basis for the respondent to be liable for the reserved costs, as the danger the application sought to address no longer existed once the strike notice was withdrawn. The application for costs was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made in respect of the postponed application, as it was unopposed and both parties had an ongoing relationship.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed. No order as to costs in respect of the postponed application.

Orders

  • The application for costs is dismissed with costs.
  • There is no order as to costs in respect of the application postponed on 5 June 2006.