Clink v Leinot and Others (C1192/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 27 (8 April 2021)

Clink v Leinot and Others (C1192/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 27 (8 April 2021)

The court found that the applicant had substantially complied with the Practice Manual by filing and serving the documentary record, even though he failed to serve the record on the attorney of record for the sixth and seventh respondents. The respondents were not prejudiced, as the record was available and their attorneys had access to the court file. In the interests of justice, the application to archive the review was dismissed, but the sixth and seventh respondents were granted leave to file answering papers, given the procedural irregularity.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 27
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Saaiman Clink; Respondent: Commissioner K Leinot; Respondent: Commissioner L Taylor; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry; Respondent: DHL Supply Chain Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SATAWU; Respondent: British American Tobacco SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2021
Case Number
C1192/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Archive/dismiss Review; Interlocutory
Outcome
Application to archive the main review application dismissed; sixth and seventh respondents granted leave to file answering papers.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Practice Manual Compliance, Service of Documents, Condonation, Rescission, Review Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Practice Manual Compliance Service of Documents Condonation Rescission Review Proceedings

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

Pieter Saaiman Clink

Applicant

Commissioner K Leinot

Respondent

Commissioner L Taylor

Respondent

National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry

Respondent

DHL Supply Chain Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

SATAWU

Respondent

British American Tobacco SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Archive/dismiss Review; Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the Practice Manual regarding filing and service of the record.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve the record on the attorney of record for the sixth and seventh respondents justifies archiving or dismissal of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require dismissal or allow respondents leave to oppose.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had substantially complied with the Practice Manual by filing and serving the documentary record, even though he failed to serve the record on the attorney of record for the sixth and seventh respondents. The respondents were not prejudiced, as the record was available and their attorneys had access to the court file. In the interests of justice, the application to archive the review was dismissed, but the sixth and seventh respondents were granted leave to file answering papers, given the procedural irregularity.

Court Disposition

Application to archive the main review application dismissed; sixth and seventh respondents granted leave to file answering papers.

Orders

  • The application to archive the main application is dismissed.
  • The sixth and seventh respondents are given leave to file answering papers in the review application within 10 days of this Order.