Bokoni Platinum Mine (Pty) Limited v General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (J107/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 173 (2 June 2015)

Bokoni Platinum Mine (Pty) Limited v General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (J107/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 173 (2 June 2015)

The court found that the costs provision in paragraph 25.2.5 of the original order only applied if final relief was granted, which did not occur. The absence of a specific costs order for the initial application meant that the matter was open for determination. The court considered the tactical manoeuvres and complexities of the underlying dispute over organisational rights and concluded that the respondents' opposition was not frivolous. In law and fairness, each party should bear its own costs for the interim application. However, the applicant should pay the respondents' costs for opposing the costs order on the final day, as the respondents were successful in that aspect.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 173
Parties
Applicant: Bokoni Platinum Mine (Pty) Limited; Respondent: General Industries Workers Union of South Africa; Respondent: Those names appearing on Annexure 'A' hereto
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2015
Case Number
J107/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Strike Interdict
Outcome
Each party to pay its own costs for the interim application; applicant to pay respondents' costs for opposing the costs order on the final day.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Costs Award, Organisational Rights, Protected Strike Action
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Interdict Costs Award Organisational Rights Protected Strike Action

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bokoni Platinum Mine (Pty) Limited

Applicant

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa

Respondent

Those names appearing on Annexure 'A' hereto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Strike Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be liable for the costs of the initial interim interdict application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be liable for the costs of the respondents' opposition to a costs order on the final day.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the costs provision in paragraph 25.2.5 of the original order only applied if final relief was granted, which did not occur. The absence of a specific costs order for the initial application meant that the matter was open for determination. The court considered the tactical manoeuvres and complexities of the underlying dispute over organisational rights and concluded that the respondents' opposition was not frivolous. In law and fairness, each party should bear its own costs for the interim application. However, the applicant should pay the respondents' costs for opposing the costs order on the final day, as the respondents were successful in that aspect.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its own costs for the interim application; applicant to pay respondents' costs for opposing the costs order on the final day.

Orders

  • Each party must pay its own costs for the interim application heard on 29 January 2014.
  • The applicant must pay the respondent's costs for opposing an order of costs on 29 May 2015.