Element Six (Production) (Pty) Ltd v Solidarity and Others (JS568/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 109; (2025) 46 ILJ 1426 (LC) (19 March 2025)

Element Six (Production) (Pty) Ltd v Solidarity and Others (JS568/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 109; (2025) 46 ILJ 1426 (LC) (19 March 2025)

The exception was upheld because the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim did not establish any basis for liability against the excipient regarding the cancellation of post-retirement medical aid benefits. The pleadings themselves acknowledged that any entitlement had been transferred to the first defendant under section 197 of the LRA. However, the court found that it would not be just to deny the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their pleadings, as section 197 transfers can, in certain circumstances, leave residual liabilities with the transferor. The interests of justice require that plaintiffs be given a fair chance to articulate any claim they may have, especially at an early...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 109
Parties
Applicant: Element Six (Production) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Solidarity; Respondent: Brits, P J; Respondent: Van Zyl, S; Respondent: Norval, K E; Respondent: Hall, D A; Respondent: Geel, JJ; Respondent: Somer E J; Respondent: Hunt D R; Respondent: Du Toit G J G; Respondent: Expert Mining Tools (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
JS568/22
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Statement of Claim; Relief and Costs Determined
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiffs' amended statement of claim struck out; leave to amend granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ramji
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Joinder of Parties, Exception Procedure, Leave to Amend, Costs in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Joinder of Parties Exception Procedure Leave to Amend Costs 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Element Six (Production) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Solidarity

Respondent

Brits, P J

Respondent

Van Zyl, S

Respondent

Norval, K E

Respondent

Hall, D A

Respondent

Geel, JJ

Respondent

Somer E J

Respondent

Hunt D R

Respondent

Du Toit G J G

Respondent

Expert Mining Tools (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Statement of Claim; Relief and Costs Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the amended statement of claim disclose a cause of action against the excipient?
  2. 2 Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their statement of claim after the exception is upheld?
  3. 3 Is a costs order appropriate in the circumstances of this exception?

Ratio Decidendi

The exception was upheld because the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim did not establish any basis for liability against the excipient regarding the cancellation of post-retirement medical aid benefits. The pleadings themselves acknowledged that any entitlement had been transferred to the first defendant under section 197 of the LRA. However, the court found that it would not be just to deny the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their pleadings, as section 197 transfers can, in certain circumstances, leave residual liabilities with the transferor. The interests of justice require that plaintiffs be given a fair chance to articulate any claim they may have, especially at an early...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiffs' amended statement of claim struck out; leave to amend granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld and the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim dated 2 September 2024 is struck out.
  • The plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their statement of claim within 15 days from the date of this order.