Ludick v Pharmacare Ltd t/a Aspen Pharmacare (JS527/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 151 (27 March 2018)

Ludick v Pharmacare Ltd t/a Aspen Pharmacare (JS527/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 151 (27 March 2018)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the statement of claim, as the reasons advanced did not account for the significant lapse of time between the certificate of outcome and the condonation application. The applicant did not properly plead the grounds for discrimination, nor did he establish a link between the alleged pay differential and any prohibited ground under the Employment Equity Act. The assertion of strong prospects of success was unsupported by substantive evidence or argument. In accordance with established principles, condonation cannot be granted where the delay is unexplained and the prospects of success are not properly...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 151
Parties
Applicant: Christpher Ludick; Respondent: Pharmacare Ltd t/a Aspen Pharmacare
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Case Number
JS 527/17
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s statement of claim is refused. No order as to costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Employment Equity Act, Equal Pay, Unfair Discrimination
Labour Law Condonation Late Filing Employment Equity Act Equal Pay Unfair Discrimination

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christpher Ludick

Applicant

Pharmacare Ltd t/a Aspen Pharmacare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the statement of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated prospects of success in the underlying claim for unfair discrimination based on equal pay.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the statement of claim should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the statement of claim, as the reasons advanced did not account for the significant lapse of time between the certificate of outcome and the condonation application. The applicant did not properly plead the grounds for discrimination, nor did he establish a link between the alleged pay differential and any prohibited ground under the Employment Equity Act. The assertion of strong prospects of success was unsupported by substantive evidence or argument. In accordance with established principles, condonation cannot be granted where the delay is unexplained and the prospects of success are not properly...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s statement of claim is refused. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s statement of claim is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.