Grilo v Julius Solomon Group and Others (C1118/2001) [2002] ZALC 65; [2002] 12 BLLR 1184 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 2052 (LC) (8 August 2002)

Grilo v Julius Solomon Group and Others (C1118/2001) [2002] ZALC 65; [2002] 12 BLLR 1184 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 2052 (LC) (8 August 2002)

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was substantial but, given the applicant's explanation and the merits of the case, condonation should be granted to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Third Respondent erred in dismissing the arbitration without unequivocal notice that the certificate of non-resolution had been withdrawn. The correct procedure would have been to strike the matter from the roll pending such notice. The court held that the applicant should not be prejudiced by the collective misunderstanding of the law by the legal representatives and the Bargaining Council official. The decision to dismiss the arbitration was reviewed and set aside, and the...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 65
Parties
Applicant: Rahul Grilo; Respondent: The Julius Solomon Group; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: W F Maritz N.O.
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2002
Case Number
C1118/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Dismissal
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the application is granted. The decision of the Third Respondent to dismiss the arbitration is reviewed and set aside. The arbitration must continue from where it ended on 18 January 2001. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent.
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Section 191 Lra, Section 147 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Section 191 Lra Section 147 Lra

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahul Grilo

Applicant

The Julius Solomon Group

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

W F Maritz N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the Third Respondent's decision to dismiss the arbitration was reviewable and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the certificate of non-resolution was validly rescinded or withdrawn by the Bargaining Council.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was substantial but, given the applicant's explanation and the merits of the case, condonation should be granted to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Third Respondent erred in dismissing the arbitration without unequivocal notice that the certificate of non-resolution had been withdrawn. The correct procedure would have been to strike the matter from the roll pending such notice. The court held that the applicant should not be prejudiced by the collective misunderstanding of the law by the legal representatives and the Bargaining Council official. The decision to dismiss the arbitration was reviewed and set aside, and the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the application is granted. The decision of the Third Respondent to dismiss the arbitration is reviewed and set aside. The arbitration must continue from where it ended on 18 January 2001. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application is granted.
  • The decision of the Third Respondent to dismiss the application is reviewed and set aside.