Burmeister De Lange Soni Inc and Another v Pay (PS23/13) [2018] ZALCPE 15 (6 April 2018)

Burmeister De Lange Soni Inc and Another v Pay (PS23/13) [2018] ZALCPE 15 (6 April 2018)

The applicants failed to comply with the order granting them leave to defend and did not file a response to the statement of claim within the prescribed period. Their explanation for default is without merit, as they could not reasonably have assumed the respondent abandoned her claim in such a short period. The applicants were not entitled to notice of the default judgment application or the directive to file a statement of defence, as the Rules and Practice Manual do not require such notice. The requirements for rescission under Rule 16 have not been met, and the prospects of success are not sufficient to outweigh the lack of good cause. The application for rescission is dismissed with...

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 15
Parties
Applicant: Burmeister De Lange Soni Inc; Applicant: Zelpy 2345 (Pty) Ltd t/a Real Estates Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Michelle Pay
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2018
Case Number
PS23/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Rescind Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement, Notice Requirements, Wilful Default
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Good Cause Requirement Notice Requirements Wilful Default

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burmeister De Lange Soni Inc

Applicant

Zelpy 2345 (Pty) Ltd t/a Real Estates Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Michelle Pay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Rescind Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to notice of the default judgment application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with the order granting them leave to defend and did not file a response to the statement of claim within the prescribed period. Their explanation for default is without merit, as they could not reasonably have assumed the respondent abandoned her claim in such a short period. The applicants were not entitled to notice of the default judgment application or the directive to file a statement of defence, as the Rules and Practice Manual do not require such notice. The requirements for rescission under Rule 16 have not been met, and the prospects of success are not sufficient to outweigh the lack of good cause. The application for rescission is dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.