Dunster v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited (JS627/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 214 (31 May 2024)

Dunster v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited (JS627/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 214 (31 May 2024)

The court found that the delay in delivering the Statement of Response was not significant and that the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for both the late delivery and the delay in bringing the condonation application. The court accepted that the respondent reasonably believed condonation was not required, given the lack of objection and the ambiguity in the Practice Manual's application to referrals. The applicant's argument that Clause 11.4.2 should not apply to referrals was rejected, as there was no substantive basis for differentiation between pleadings and affidavits in this context. The court held that the prejudice claimed by the applicant was self-inflicted, as she...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 214
Parties
Applicant: Nomsa Dunster; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2024
Case Number
JS 627/21
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Statement of Response
Outcome
Condonation for the late delivery of the Statement of Response is granted. No order as to costs.
Judges
C. Orr
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Pleadings, Practice Manual Interpretation, Prejudice, Costs in Cause
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Pleadings Practice Manual Interpretation Prejudice Costs in Cause

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomsa Dunster

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Statement of Response

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late delivery of the Statement of Response.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a timely objection to the late delivery negates the need for a condonation application.
  3. 3 Whether Clause 11.4.2 of the Practice Manual applies to referrals as it does to motion proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in delivering the Statement of Response was not significant and that the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for both the late delivery and the delay in bringing the condonation application. The court accepted that the respondent reasonably believed condonation was not required, given the lack of objection and the ambiguity in the Practice Manual's application to referrals. The applicant's argument that Clause 11.4.2 should not apply to referrals was rejected, as there was no substantive basis for differentiation between pleadings and affidavits in this context. The court held that the prejudice claimed by the applicant was self-inflicted, as she...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late delivery of the Statement of Response is granted. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Respondent is granted condonation for the late delivery of the Statement of Response.
  • There is no order as to costs either in this application or the costs occasioned by the postponement of this matter on 12 February 2024.