Autopax Passengers Servies (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (J900/06) [2008] ZALC 216 (5 August 2008)

Autopax Passengers Servies (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (J900/06) [2008] ZALC 216 (5 August 2008)

The court found that the applicant was aware, prior to serving its urgent application, that the respondent had withdrawn the secondary strike notice. 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 costs reserved on 5 June 2006, as the danger that prompted the application no longer existed. Both parties sought costs against each other, but given the ongoing relationship and the fact that the postponed application was unopposed, the court held that there should be no order as to costs. The application for costs was dismissed...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 216
Parties
Applicant: Autopax Passengers Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Transport & Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2008
Case Number
J900/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed with costs. No order as to costs in respect of the application postponed on 5 June 2006.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Secondary Strike, Costs Award, Urgent Application, Withdrawal of Strike Notice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Secondary Strike Costs Award Urgent Application Withdrawal of Strike Notice

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 Following 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.
  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 any order as to costs given the conduct of both parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware, prior to serving its urgent application, that the respondent had withdrawn the secondary strike notice. 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 costs reserved on 5 June 2006, as the danger that prompted the application no longer existed. Both parties sought costs against each other, but given the ongoing relationship and the fact that the postponed application was unopposed, the court held that there should be no order as to costs. The application for costs was dismissed...

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed with costs. No order as to costs in respect of the application postponed on 5 June 2006.

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.