Hughes v Lazarus And Co (JS115/2013) [2015] ZALCJHB 270 (17 August 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZALCJHB 270
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- JS115/2013
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- JS115/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hughes, Lizette
ApplicantLazarus & Co
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Referral
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has provided an adequate explanation for the late referral of her dismissal dispute to the Labour Court.
- 02
Whether the delay in referral is excessive or unreasonable.
- 03
Whether the interests of law and fairness require a costs order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant explained that the delay was due to her pregnancy, medical advice requiring bed rest, and the closure of her attorney's offices during the December/January break. She was aware of the deadline but could not consult her attorney until the offices reopened. Upon consultation, she received incorrect advice regarding the certificate of outcome, which contributed to the delay. She intended to prosecute her claim throughout and acted promptly once able.
- Respondent
- The respondent primarily attacked the merits of the application, focusing on the adequacy of the applicant's explanation for the delay. The respondent argued that the explanation was insufficient and that the applicant was aware of the deadline but failed to act timeously.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act
The court has a broad discretion to grant condonation for late referral if the explanation for the delay is adequate and the delay is not excessive.
- 02
Prevailing authorities under the Labour Relations Act
It is not necessary to assess prospects of success where the explanation for delay is adequate and the delay is not inordinate.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's explanation for the delay, while not as full as it might be, was not unreasonable.
- It was not unreasonable for the applicant to wait until mid-January to consult her attorney, given the closure of the offices.
- Part of the delay can be attributed to poor advice from the applicant's attorney.
Court disposition
Application for condonation of late referral granted.
- The late referral of the applicant’s statement of claim is condoned.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Not reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JS 115/2013
In the matter between:
HUGHES, LIZETTE
APPLICANT
and
LAZARUS & CO
RESPONDENT
Heard: 14 August 2015
Delivered: 17 August 2015
VAN
NIEKERK J
Introduction
[1] This is an application to condone the late referral of a dispute concerning the applicant’s dismissal to this court for
adjudication. The certificate of outcome in question was issued on 26 September 2012. The applicant’s statement of claim had to be filed by no later than 26 December 2012. The statement of claim was served and filed on 18 February 2013, some 53 days late.
[2] This is not an inordinate delay. Most of the respondent’s attack, is on the merits of the application concerning the explanation for the delay. In short, the applicant states that she gave birth to a child during October prior to which she had been
diagnosed with high blood pressure and bed rest was recommended by her doctor. She concedes that she was aware of the deadline of 26 December 2012 but that when she visited her attorney’s offices during the beginning of December 2012, the officers had closed for the December\January break. The applicant scheduled a consultation with her attorney the day after the attorney’s office reopened and received advice to the effect that the certificate of outcome was incorrect and that the matter should proceed to arbitration. Counsel was briefed to draft an application to set aside the certificate and advised that the dispute ought properly to be referred to this court for adjudication.
[3] While the applicant’s explanation might be criticised for not being as full as it might be, in my view, it is not an unreasonable
one. It would appear from the papers that the applicant intended at all relevant times to prosecute her claim, and that part of the delay, at least, can be attributed to the poor advice of her attorney. It was also not unreasonable for the applicant to have
waited until mid-January to consult with her attorney, given the closure of the attorney’s offices.
[4] I am satisfied that the applicant has made out an adequate explanation for the delay that is not excessive and that in the circumstances, she is entitled to the order that she seeks. Given the prevailing authorities, it is not necessary for me to assess the applicant’s prospects of success, and I make no findings in that regard.
[5] Given the broad discretion afforded the court in terms of section 162 of the Act, it seems to me that the interests of the law and fairness are best served by each party paying its own costs.
I make the following order:
1. The late referral of the applicant’s statement of claim is condoned.
2. There is no order as to costs.
ANDRE
VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.