Heyneke v Nissan (J125/01) [2003] ZALC 4 (1 January 2003)

Heyneke v Nissan (J125/01) [2003] ZALC 4 (1 January 2003)

The court found that the applicant was not properly notified of the hearing date for the rescission application, as the notice of set down was only sent to the respondent's attorneys. The existence of an agreement regarding costs was disputed, but the court accepted the applicant's version that he did not receive the respondent's reply rejecting his proposal. The court concluded that not all relevant facts were before it when the cost order was granted and that the applicant should not have been burdened with costs in these circumstances. Accordingly, the cost order was rescinded, but the rescission of the substantive order stood.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 4
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Jachimus Heyneke; Respondent: I C Nissan
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2003
Case Number
J125/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Cost Order
Outcome
The cost order against the applicant is rescinded; the rescission of the substantive order remains in force.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Rescission of Order, Section 158 1 C Application
Labour Law Costs Award Rescission of Order Section 158 1 C 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Jachimus Heyneke

Applicant

I C Nissan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Cost Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cost order granted against the applicant in his absence should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date for the rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether an agreement existed that no cost order would be sought against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not properly notified of the hearing date for the rescission application, as the notice of set down was only sent to the respondent's attorneys. The existence of an agreement regarding costs was disputed, but the court accepted the applicant's version that he did not receive the respondent's reply rejecting his proposal. The court concluded that not all relevant facts were before it when the cost order was granted and that the applicant should not have been burdened with costs in these circumstances. Accordingly, the cost order was rescinded, but the rescission of the substantive order stood.

Court Disposition

The cost order against the applicant is rescinded; the rescission of the substantive order remains in force.

Orders

  • The cost order granted against the applicant is rescinded.
  • The rescission of the order granted in terms of section 158(1)(c) stands.