Irving v Amic Trading (Pty) Ltd (JS104/2014) [2014] ZALCJHB 418 (31 August 2014)

Irving v Amic Trading (Pty) Ltd (JS104/2014) [2014] ZALCJHB 418 (31 August 2014)

The court found that, save for the reference to section 186(1)(f) in paragraph 6.16 of the applicant's statement of case, the applicant's pleading was not excipiable. The applicant did not plead resignation but rather dismissal by the respondent's conduct, which is a competent cause of action for automatic unfair dismissal under section 197 of the LRA. Any contradictions or ambiguities were minor and could be resolved at pre-trial conference. The respondent was not seriously prejudiced by the alleged defects and should have answered the statement of case. The exception was upheld only in respect of paragraph 6.16, which was struck out; all other grounds of exception were dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 418
Parties
Applicant: Jennifer Valerie Irving; Respondent: Amic Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2014
Case Number
JS104/2014
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Statement of Claim; Interlocutory Determination
Outcome
Exception upheld in part; paragraph 6.16 of the applicant's statement of case struck out; all other grounds of exception dismissed.
Judges
Snyman
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Section 197 Transfer, Exception Procedure, Pleading Requirements, Pretrial Conference, Legal Representative Conduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatic Unfair Dismissal Section 197 Transfer Exception Procedure Pleading Requirements Pretrial Conference Legal Representative Conduct

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Valerie Irving

Applicant

Amic Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Statement of Claim; Interlocutory Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's statement of case is excipiable due to alleged contradictions regarding resignation and dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the pleading contains sufficient particularity to sustain a cause of action for automatic unfair dismissal under section 197 of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the reference to section 186(1)(f) is competent given the applicant's pleaded case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, save for the reference to section 186(1)(f) in paragraph 6.16 of the applicant's statement of case, the applicant's pleading was not excipiable. The applicant did not plead resignation but rather dismissal by the respondent's conduct, which is a competent cause of action for automatic unfair dismissal under section 197 of the LRA. Any contradictions or ambiguities were minor and could be resolved at pre-trial conference. The respondent was not seriously prejudiced by the alleged defects and should have answered the statement of case. The exception was upheld only in respect of paragraph 6.16, which was struck out; all other grounds of exception were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld in part; paragraph 6.16 of the applicant's statement of case struck out; all other grounds of exception dismissed.

Orders

  • Paragraph 6.16 of the applicant’s statement of case is struck out.
  • Save for the striking out of paragraph 6.16, the respondent’s exceptions are dismissed.