Horne v South African Breweries and Others (C175/97) [1998] ZALC 18 (28 May 1998)

Horne v South African Breweries and Others (C175/97) [1998] ZALC 18 (28 May 1998)

The applicant's review application was procedurally defective, lacking a proper notice of motion and affidavit, and failed to call for the record of arbitration proceedings. The applicant did not substantiate her allegation that the arbitrator failed to apply his mind. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of explanation for delay and the absence of a clear new case. The application was dismissed with costs as it was unsupported by evidence and failed to meet procedural requirements.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 18
Parties
Applicant: Daphne Q Horne; Respondent: Independent Mediation Service of S.A.; Respondent: South African Breweries; Respondent: Food and Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 1998
Case Number
C175/97
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Zondo
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Irregularities, Affidavit Requirements, Postponement of Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Irregularities Affidavit Requirements Postponement of Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daphne Q Horne

Applicant

Independent Mediation Service of S.A.

Respondent

South African Breweries

Respondent

Food and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application complied with procedural requirements for review in the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant substantiated allegations that the arbitrator failed to apply his mind.
  3. 3 Whether a postponement of the proceedings should have been granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's review application was procedurally defective, lacking a proper notice of motion and affidavit, and failed to call for the record of arbitration proceedings. The applicant did not substantiate her allegation that the arbitrator failed to apply his mind. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of explanation for delay and the absence of a clear new case. The application was dismissed with costs as it was unsupported by evidence and failed to meet procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for postponement is refused.