Marx v Stalcor and Others (J4779/99) [2001] ZALC 183; [2001] 12 BLLR 1338 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2669 (LC) (22 October 2001)

Marx v Stalcor and Others (J4779/99) [2001] ZALC 183; [2001] 12 BLLR 1338 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2669 (LC) (22 October 2001)

The court held that attorneys who are not in possession of a Fidelity Fund certificate and who are not on the practising roll are not entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court. The Labour Relations Act section 161 does not override the requirements of the Attorneys Act, and the act of representing clients for reward in the Labour Court constitutes practising as an attorney, which requires compliance with section 41 of the Attorneys Act. Accordingly, pleadings and pre-trial minutes signed by attorneys not entitled to practice are declared null and void. The court further found that withdrawal by such attorneys to avoid a ruling on their right to practice was a tactical and...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 183
Parties
Applicant: Johann Philip Marx; Respondent: Stalcor; Respondent: Co-Ed Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dorbyl Marine (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Juan Reynaldo Glaubitz; Respondent: Preston Anderson CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2001
Case Number
J4779/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Right of Audience and Validity of Pleadings
Outcome
The court declared that attorneys not in possession of a Fidelity Fund certificate are not entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court, and pleadings signed by such attorneys are null and void.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Right of Audience, Attorneys Act Compliance, Fidelity Fund Certificate, Labour Relations Act Section 161, Nullity of Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Right of Audience Attorneys Act Compliance Fidelity Fund Certificate Labour Relations Act Section 161 Nullity of Proceedings

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johann Philip Marx

Applicant

Stalcor

Respondent

Co-Ed Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dorbyl Marine (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Juan Reynaldo Glaubitz

Applicant

Preston Anderson CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Right of Audience and Validity of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attorneys not in possession of a Fidelity Fund certificate are entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether pleadings and pre-trial minutes signed by such attorneys are valid.
  3. 3 Whether representation by non-practising attorneys or corporate entities complies with the Labour Relations Act and Attorneys Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that attorneys who are not in possession of a Fidelity Fund certificate and who are not on the practising roll are not entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court. The Labour Relations Act section 161 does not override the requirements of the Attorneys Act, and the act of representing clients for reward in the Labour Court constitutes practising as an attorney, which requires compliance with section 41 of the Attorneys Act. Accordingly, pleadings and pre-trial minutes signed by attorneys not entitled to practice are declared null and void. The court further found that withdrawal by such attorneys to avoid a ruling on their right to practice was a tactical and...

Court Disposition

The court declared that attorneys not in possession of a Fidelity Fund certificate are not entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court, and pleadings signed by such attorneys are null and void.

Orders

  • It is declared that Mr Murray Dicks, a partner of Deloitte & Touche, is not entitled to practice for gain in the Labour Court unless he complies with section 41(1) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979.
  • The pleadings, documentation, and pre-trial minute signed by Mr Dicks are declared null and void.