Hulme v KLM Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd (JR1256/05) [2013] ZALCJHB 23; [2013] 9 BLLR 920 (LC) (26 February 2013)

Hulme v KLM Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd (JR1256/05) [2013] ZALCJHB 23; [2013] 9 BLLR 920 (LC) (26 February 2013)

The Court found that although there were significant delays in prosecuting the review application, responsibility for those delays was shared by both parties. The applicant failed to file an answering affidavit and did not communicate her intention regarding opposition, despite having delivered a notice of intention to oppose. The respondent complied with the order to file its supplementary affidavit, and thereafter waited for the applicant's response. The lack of communication and action from both sides resulted in the matter not being enrolled for hearing. The Court held that in these circumstances, it would not be just to dismiss the review application solely on the basis of delay...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 23
Parties
Applicant: Yvonne Merle Hulme; Respondent: KLM Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Case Number
JR1256/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review Application Due to Delay
Outcome
Application to dismiss the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal Vs Resignation, Ccma Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unreasonable Delay Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal Vs Resignation Ccma Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Merle Hulme

Applicant

KLM Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review Application Due to Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay by the respondent in prosecuting the matter.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's own conduct contributed to the delay and affects the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the review application should be set down on the unopposed roll.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that although there were significant delays in prosecuting the review application, responsibility for those delays was shared by both parties. The applicant failed to file an answering affidavit and did not communicate her intention regarding opposition, despite having delivered a notice of intention to oppose. The respondent complied with the order to file its supplementary affidavit, and thereafter waited for the applicant's response. The lack of communication and action from both sides resulted in the matter not being enrolled for hearing. The Court held that in these circumstances, it would not be just to dismiss the review application solely on the basis of delay...

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss is dismissed.
  • The registrar is directed to enrol the review application on the unopposed motion roll.