Landman v Deutsche Bank AG Johannesburg Branch (JS395/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 358 (14 October 2021)

Landman v Deutsche Bank AG Johannesburg Branch (JS395/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 358 (14 October 2021)

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment, though substantial and lengthy, was not made in bad faith and did not amount to an abuse of process. The amendment was necessary for the proper ventilation of the dispute and introduced triable issues relevant to the case. The respondent's objections regarding excipiability and prejudice were not sufficient to refuse the amendment, as any prejudice could be cured by a costs order and the claim for damages under the Protected Disclosures Act was not statutorily capped. The court held that the interests of justice required the amendment to be permitted, allowing the parties to fully ventilate the dispute at trial. The application for...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 358
Parties
Applicant: Brett Eric Landman; Respondent: Deutsche Bank AG Johannesburg Branch
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2021
Case Number
JS395/19
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend the statement of claim is granted. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
Nindi
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure Act, Amendment of Pleadings, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Compensation for Occupational Detriment, Costs in Labour Matters
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Disclosure Act Amendment of Pleadings Automatic Unfair Dismissal Compensation for Occupational Detriment Costs in Labour Matters

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Eric Landman

Applicant

Deutsche Bank AG Johannesburg Branch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim in terms of Rule 11.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment amounts to a substitution rather than an amendment and is permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the amendment is granted and if such prejudice can be cured.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment, though substantial and lengthy, was not made in bad faith and did not amount to an abuse of process. The amendment was necessary for the proper ventilation of the dispute and introduced triable issues relevant to the case. The respondent's objections regarding excipiability and prejudice were not sufficient to refuse the amendment, as any prejudice could be cured by a costs order and the claim for damages under the Protected Disclosures Act was not statutorily capped. The court held that the interests of justice required the amendment to be permitted, allowing the parties to fully ventilate the dispute at trial. The application for...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the statement of claim is granted. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend his statement of claim in accordance with the notice of intention to amend dated 16 September 2020.
  • The applicant is directed to effect the aforesaid amendment within ten (10) days from the date of the order.