Gauteng Department of Education v South African Democratic Teachers Union (J1812/10) [2010] ZALC 302 (16 November 2010)

Gauteng Department of Education v South African Democratic Teachers Union (J1812/10) [2010] ZALC 302 (16 November 2010)

The respondent was found to be in wilful contempt of the Labour Court's order, as it proceeded with a prohibited gathering and disrupted exams despite having received notice of the order and application. The requirements for contempt were satisfied on the evidence. The punitive costs order was justified as a mark of disapproval for the respondent's deliberate flouting of the court's authority and in the interests of law and fairness. The original costs order was varied to reflect costs on an attorney and own client scale, correcting an obvious error under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent was given an opportunity to file answering papers but failed to do so, and...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 302
Parties
Applicant: Gauteng Department of Education; Respondent: South African Democratic Teachers' Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Case Number
J1812/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Variation of Costs Order and Reasons for Contempt Order
Outcome
The respondent was found in contempt of court and ordered to pay costs on an attorney and own client scale. The costs order was varied to correct an error. The respondent was given an opportunity to file answering papers but failed to do so and was ordered to pay the costs of the postponement.
Judges
Bhoola
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Punitive Costs, Rule Nisi, Service of Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Urgent Interdict Punitive Costs Rule Nisi Service of Process

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gauteng Department of Education

Applicant

South African Democratic Teachers' Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Variation of Costs Order and Reasons for Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was in wilful contempt of the Labour Court's order granted on 19 September 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to a punitive costs order against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the variation of the costs order was justified under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was found to be in wilful contempt of the Labour Court's order, as it proceeded with a prohibited gathering and disrupted exams despite having received notice of the order and application. The requirements for contempt were satisfied on the evidence. The punitive costs order was justified as a mark of disapproval for the respondent's deliberate flouting of the court's authority and in the interests of law and fairness. The original costs order was varied to reflect costs on an attorney and own client scale, correcting an obvious error under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent was given an opportunity to file answering papers but failed to do so, and...

Court Disposition

The respondent was found in contempt of court and ordered to pay costs on an attorney and own client scale. The costs order was varied to correct an error. The respondent was given an opportunity to file answering papers but failed to do so and was ordered to pay the costs of the postponement.

Orders

  • The respondent, its office-bearers and members are declared in contempt of the Labour Court's order granted on 19 September 2010.
  • The sheriff is directed to serve a copy of the order on the respondent on 21 September 2010 on or before 1pm.