Electrocomp (Pty) Limited v Novak (J5027/99) [2001] ZALC 105; [2001] 10 BLLR 1118 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2015 (LC) (16 July 2001)

Electrocomp (Pty) Limited v Novak (J5027/99) [2001] ZALC 105; [2001] 10 BLLR 1118 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2015 (LC) (16 July 2001)

The court found that the applicant was the author of its own misfortune due to its disregard for proper procedure and confusion regarding legal representation. Notices of set down were correctly served on the attorneys formally on record, and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The applicant's absence was attributable to its own conduct and not to any error or irregularity that would justify rescission under Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) or Section 165 of the Labour Relations Act. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant on the attorney and own client scale.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 105
Parties
Applicant: Electrocomp (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Milan Novak
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2001
Case Number
J5027/99
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Condonation Order
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant on the attorney and own client scale.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Condonation, Representation in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Condonation Representation in Labour Court

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electrocomp (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Milan Novak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Condonation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment and the order dismissing condonation should be rescinded under Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) and Section 165 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was genuinely unaware of the set down dates for the condonation and default judgment applications.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's own conduct or that of its legal representatives justifies rescission of the orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was the author of its own misfortune due to its disregard for proper procedure and confusion regarding legal representation. Notices of set down were correctly served on the attorneys formally on record, and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The applicant's absence was attributable to its own conduct and not to any error or irregularity that would justify rescission under Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) or Section 165 of the Labour Relations Act. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant on the attorney and own client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant on the attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The application for the rescission of the orders of this court of 28 September 2000 and 25 October 2000 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.