Da Costa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2527/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 64 (22 February 2017)

Da Costa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2527/2014) [2017] ZALCJHB 64 (22 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant made all reasonable attempts to comply with the requirements for filing the record of proceedings, including efforts to reconstruct the record in collaboration with the respondents. Despite the record being incomplete and consisting of ineligible notes, the applicant's compliance with Rule 7A (6) and the filing of a Rule 7A (8)(b) notice rendered the matter ready for hearing. The application for review was therefore not deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual. The third respondent retains the right to challenge the completeness of the record by seeking further directives within 30 days.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 64
Parties
Applicant: Petra Da Costa; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Mohammed Raffee; Respondent: SA German Commerce
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Case Number
JR2527/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Pre Enrolment Hearing
Outcome
The applicant's review application is found to be in compliance with Rule 7A (6) and is not deemed withdrawn. The third respondent may seek further directives on the record within 30 days; failing which, the matter will be set down for hearing.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Practice Manual Compliance, Record Reconstruction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Practice Manual Compliance Record Reconstruction

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petra Da Costa

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Mohammed Raffee

Respondent

SA German Commerce

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Pre Enrolment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant filed the record of proceedings timeously in compliance with Rule 7A (6).
  2. 2 Whether the review application should be deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual due to alleged non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant made all reasonable attempts to comply with the requirements for filing the record of proceedings, including efforts to reconstruct the record in collaboration with the respondents. Despite the record being incomplete and consisting of ineligible notes, the applicant's compliance with Rule 7A (6) and the filing of a Rule 7A (8)(b) notice rendered the matter ready for hearing. The application for review was therefore not deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual. The third respondent retains the right to challenge the completeness of the record by seeking further directives within 30 days.

Court Disposition

The applicant's review application is found to be in compliance with Rule 7A (6) and is not deemed withdrawn. The third respondent may seek further directives on the record within 30 days; failing which, the matter will be set down for hearing.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for review is found to be in compliance with Rule 7A (6) of the Rules of this Court.
  • The third respondent has 30 days within which to seek any further directives on the record of proceedings as filed.