Foley v Transvaal Abrasives CC (J2003/02) [2015] ZALCJHB 259 (14 August 2015)

Foley v Transvaal Abrasives CC (J2003/02) [2015] ZALCJHB 259 (14 August 2015)

The court held that, given the protracted history of the matter, the respondent's ill-considered rescission application, its failure to timeously oppose the application to make the award an order of court, and the belated raising of substantial points in written heads of argument, considerations of equity and procedural fairness dictate that the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to respond. The respondent did not formally bring a Rule 11 application to dismiss the matter for inordinate delay, and only filed a notice to oppose without an answering affidavit. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 11(3) and (4) to grant the applicant leave to file a further affidavit,...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 259
Parties
Applicant: Patrick James Foley; Respondent: Transvaal Abrasives CC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2015
Case Number
J2003/02
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit After Hearing, Pending Final Determination of Application to Make CCMA Award an Order of Court
Outcome
Leave granted to applicant to file a further affidavit; directions given for further affidavits and responses; costs reserved.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Ccma Award Enforcement, Rule 11 Applications, Inordinate Delay, Rescission Application
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Ccma Award Enforcement Rule 11 Applications Inordinate Delay Rescission Application

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick James Foley

Applicant

Transvaal Abrasives CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit After Hearing, Pending Final Determination of Application to Make CCMA Award an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a further affidavit after the hearing but before judgment is delivered.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's opposition based on inordinate delay in prosecuting the application is procedurally and substantively valid.
  3. 3 Whether considerations of equity and procedural fairness require that the applicant be allowed to respond to new arguments raised by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the protracted history of the matter, the respondent's ill-considered rescission application, its failure to timeously oppose the application to make the award an order of court, and the belated raising of substantial points in written heads of argument, considerations of equity and procedural fairness dictate that the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to respond. The respondent did not formally bring a Rule 11 application to dismiss the matter for inordinate delay, and only filed a notice to oppose without an answering affidavit. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 11(3) and (4) to grant the applicant leave to file a further affidavit,...

Court Disposition

Leave granted to applicant to file a further affidavit; directions given for further affidavits and responses; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file a further affidavit.
  • The applicant's further affidavit is to be filed within 14 days of the handing down of this order.