De Grandi v South African Airways (SOC) Limited (22/24141) [2024] ZAGPJHC 864 (5 September 2024)

De Grandi v South African Airways (SOC) Limited (22/24141) [2024] ZAGPJHC 864 (5 September 2024)

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the application for leave to amend was minimal and adequately explained. The respondent's demand for further particularity regarding the consultation with counsel was unreasonable, and there was no evidence of bad faith. The applicant's claim, based on the alleged malicious intent of the respondent and failure to follow its own grievance procedure, was sufficiently pleaded to disclose a cause of action. The court held that the applicant had complied with Rule 18(4) and 18(10) regarding the pleading of facts and quantification of damages. The respondent's objections were found to be misconceived, as the applicant did not allege that her...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 864
Parties
Applicant: Naomi De Grandi; Respondent: South African Airways (SOC) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2024
Case Number
22/24141
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to amend is granted. Leave to amend the particulars of claim is granted.
Judges
S McCafferty
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Condonation, Unlawful Dismissal, Grievance Procedure, Quantification of Damages
Civil Procedure Labour Law Amendment of Pleadings Condonation Unlawful Dismissal Grievance Procedure Quantification of Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naomi De Grandi

Applicant

South African Airways (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to amend.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's proposed amendments to the particulars of claim cure the defects previously identified.
  3. 3 Whether the amended particulars of claim disclose a cause of action and are not vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the application for leave to amend was minimal and adequately explained. The respondent's demand for further particularity regarding the consultation with counsel was unreasonable, and there was no evidence of bad faith. The applicant's claim, based on the alleged malicious intent of the respondent and failure to follow its own grievance procedure, was sufficiently pleaded to disclose a cause of action. The court held that the applicant had complied with Rule 18(4) and 18(10) regarding the pleading of facts and quantification of damages. The respondent's objections were found to be misconceived, as the applicant did not allege that her...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to amend is granted. Leave to amend the particulars of claim is granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the applicant's application for leave to amend her particulars of claim is condoned.
  • The applicant is granted leave to amend her particulars of claim.