Hughes v Lazarus And Co (JS115/2013) [2015] ZALCJHB 270 (17 August 2015)

Hughes v Lazarus And Co (JS115/2013) [2015] ZALCJHB 270 (17 August 2015)

The court found that the delay of 53 days in referring the dismissal dispute was not excessive. The applicant's explanation, though not exhaustive, was reasonable under the circumstances, including medical reasons and the closure of her attorney's offices. The applicant demonstrated an intention to prosecute her claim at all relevant times, and part of the delay was attributable to poor legal advice. The court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to condone the late referral. No assessment of prospects of success was necessary given the adequacy of the explanation. The interests of law and fairness did not warrant a costs order.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 270
Parties
Applicant: Hughes, Lizette; Respondent: Lazarus & Co
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2015
Case Number
JS115/2013
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Referral
Outcome
Application for condonation of late referral granted.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Section 162 Lra, Dismissal Dispute, Certificate of Outcome
Labour Law Condonation of Late Referral Section 162 Lra Dismissal Dispute Certificate of Outcome

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughes, Lizette

Applicant

Lazarus & Co

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided an adequate explanation for the late referral of her dismissal dispute to the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in referral is excessive or unreasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of law and fairness require a costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of 53 days in referring the dismissal dispute was not excessive. The applicant's explanation, though not exhaustive, was reasonable under the circumstances, including medical reasons and the closure of her attorney's offices. The applicant demonstrated an intention to prosecute her claim at all relevant times, and part of the delay was attributable to poor legal advice. The court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to condone the late referral. No assessment of prospects of success was necessary given the adequacy of the explanation. The interests of law and fairness did not warrant a costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of late referral granted.

Orders

  • The late referral of the applicant’s statement of claim is condoned.
  • There is no order as to costs.