Hayley Ann Cassim and Others v Virgin Active South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2002] ZACT 6 (4 February 2002)

Hayley Ann Cassim and Others v Virgin Active South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2002] ZACT 6 (4 February 2002)

The Tribunal found that the interim relief application had lapsed because the claimants failed to refer their complaint to the Tribunal within the prescribed time after receiving the Commission's notice of non-referral. The Tribunal held that, in such circumstances, it was not competent to grant any order relating to the interim relief application. Regarding costs, the Tribunal determined that the claimants' conduct, including prolonging the dispute and failing to withdraw the application or tender costs, justified an award of costs against them. The Tribunal limited the costs to the fees of one legal representative, finding the matter did not warrant more than one.

Citation
[2002] ZACT 6
Parties
Applicant: Hayley Ann Cassim; Applicant: Noeleen Catherine Barendse; Applicant: Arnold Zulman; Respondent: Virgin Active South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2002
Case Number
57/IR/Oct01
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Costs Determination After Lapse of Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application lapsed; costs awarded to respondent.
Judges
N.M. Manoim, D. H. Lewis, C. Qunta
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Costs Award, Complaint Referral, Non Referral Notice
Competition Law Interim Relief Costs Award Complaint Referral Non Referral Notice

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hayley Ann Cassim

Applicant

Noeleen Catherine Barendse

Applicant

Arnold Zulman

Applicant

Virgin Active South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Costs Determination After Lapse of Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does an interim relief application lapse by operation of law if the Commission issues a notice of non-referral and the claimant does not institute its own complaint referral under section 51 of the Act.
  2. 2 Is the respondent entitled to recover wasted costs of a lapsed interim relief application from the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the interim relief application had lapsed because the claimants failed to refer their complaint to the Tribunal within the prescribed time after receiving the Commission's notice of non-referral. The Tribunal held that, in such circumstances, it was not competent to grant any order relating to the interim relief application. Regarding costs, the Tribunal determined that the claimants' conduct, including prolonging the dispute and failing to withdraw the application or tender costs, justified an award of costs against them. The Tribunal limited the costs to the fees of one legal representative, finding the matter did not warrant more than one.

Court Disposition

Application lapsed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The claimants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the respondent's costs on a party and party scale.
  • The costs are to be limited to the fees of one legal representative.