Carpede v LG Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd (JS 877/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 93 (19 March 2013)

Carpede v LG Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd (JS 877/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 93 (19 March 2013)

The court found that the applicant was required to apply for condonation and failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. The condonation application itself was late and no reasons for its lateness were provided. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The doctrine of vigilantibus non dormientibus lex subvenit applies, and the applicant did not act with the necessary diligence. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 93
Parties
Applicant: Ingrid Mary-Beth Carpede; Respondent: LG Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2013
Case Number
JS 877/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Condonation Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Lex Subvenit
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Lex Subvenit

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingrid Mary-Beth Carpede

Applicant

LG Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was required to apply for condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a proper explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was required to apply for condonation and failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. The condonation application itself was late and no reasons for its lateness were provided. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The doctrine of vigilantibus non dormientibus lex subvenit applies, and the applicant did not act with the necessary diligence. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.