Howell v Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Plt t/a Peuget Northcliff (J578/08) [2009] ZALCJHB 74 (6 November 2009)

Howell v Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Plt t/a Peuget Northcliff (J578/08) [2009] ZALCJHB 74 (6 November 2009)

The court held that although the applicant sought to have the arbitration award made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, the respondent had filed a review application within the prescribed six-week period and had not demonstrated undue delay or lack of interest in prosecuting the review. The court found that there was confusion regarding the availability of the arbitration record and no evidence of deliberate delay by the respondent. Given these circumstances, and in the interests of justice and finality, the court exercised its discretion to stay the enforcement of the arbitration award pending the outcome of the review application. The application to...

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 74
Parties
Applicant: Jonathan Howell; Respondent: Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Plt t/a Peuget Northcliff
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2009
Case Number
J578/08
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court; Respondent Seeks Stay Pending Review
Outcome
Application to make the arbitration award an order of court is stayed pending the outcome of the review application.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Section 158 1 C Application, Stay of Enforcement, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 158 1 C Application Stay of Enforcement Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Howell

Applicant

Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Plt t/a Peuget Northcliff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court; Respondent Seeks Stay Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award should be made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of the arbitration award should be stayed pending the outcome of the respondent's review application.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to a delay or abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the applicant sought to have the arbitration award made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, the respondent had filed a review application within the prescribed six-week period and had not demonstrated undue delay or lack of interest in prosecuting the review. The court found that there was confusion regarding the availability of the arbitration record and no evidence of deliberate delay by the respondent. Given these circumstances, and in the interests of justice and finality, the court exercised its discretion to stay the enforcement of the arbitration award pending the outcome of the review application. The application to...

Court Disposition

Application to make the arbitration award an order of court is stayed pending the outcome of the review application.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application in terms of Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act is stayed pending the outcome of the review application.
  • There is no order as to costs.