Crosnier v Easigas (Pty) Ltd (J 2808/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 245; (2016) 37 ILJ 1686 (LC) (23 March 2016)

Crosnier v Easigas (Pty) Ltd (J 2808/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 245; (2016) 37 ILJ 1686 (LC) (23 March 2016)

The Labour Court retains its statutory discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to award costs in employment contract disputes referred under section 77(3) of the BCEA. This discretion is not displaced by the concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts. The court found that the applicant achieved substantial success and, given the nature and complexity of the dispute, referral to the Labour Court was justified. Therefore, costs are awarded on the High Court scale. However, the court was not persuaded that the respondent’s conduct warranted a punitive costs order, as there was insufficient evidence of mala fide or frivolous defence.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 245
Parties
Applicant: Frederic Andre Crosnier; Respondent: Easigas (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Case Number
J 2808/14
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim / Costs Determination After Settlement
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant on a party and party basis, on the High Court scale. No punitive costs order granted.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Labour Relations Act, High Court Tariff
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Concurrent Jurisdiction Basic Conditions of Employment Act Labour Relations Act High Court Tariff

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

Parties

Frederic Andre Crosnier

Applicant

Easigas (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim / Costs Determination After Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 162 of the Labour Relations Act apply to costs in contractual employment disputes referred under section 77(3) of the BCEA?.
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded on the High Court scale or limited to the Magistrates’ Court tariff when the claim falls within the lower court’s jurisdiction?.
  3. 3 Is a punitive costs order justified in the circumstances of this case?.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court retains its statutory discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to award costs in employment contract disputes referred under section 77(3) of the BCEA. This discretion is not displaced by the concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts. The court found that the applicant achieved substantial success and, given the nature and complexity of the dispute, referral to the Labour Court was justified. Therefore, costs are awarded on the High Court scale. However, the court was not persuaded that the respondent’s conduct warranted a punitive costs order, as there was insufficient evidence of mala fide or frivolous defence.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant on a party and party basis, on the High Court scale. No punitive costs order granted.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs, on a party and party basis, on the ordinarily applicable scale.