Mcdonald v TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1569/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 440 (22 February 2018)

Mcdonald v TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1569/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 440 (22 February 2018)

The court found that the respondent's delay in filing the opposing affidavit was minimal and adequately explained, with no prejudice shown by the applicant. The respondent had good prospects of success in opposing the joinder application. Condonation was therefore granted, and the application to strike out the affidavit was dismissed. Regarding leave to appeal, the court applied the more stringent test for granting leave, noting that the order was interlocutory and not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was found to be without merit and dismissed to avoid...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 440
Parties
Applicant: George Mcdonald; Respondent: TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mathew Mcdonald
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Case Number
J 1569/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order on Condonation and Striking Out Opposing Affidavit.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Joinder Application, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Joinder Application Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Mcdonald

Applicant

TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mathew Mcdonald

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order on Condonation and Striking Out Opposing Affidavit.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for the late filing of the respondent's opposing affidavit should have been granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application to strike out the respondent's opposing affidavit should succeed.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's delay in filing the opposing affidavit was minimal and adequately explained, with no prejudice shown by the applicant. The respondent had good prospects of success in opposing the joinder application. Condonation was therefore granted, and the application to strike out the affidavit was dismissed. Regarding leave to appeal, the court applied the more stringent test for granting leave, noting that the order was interlocutory and not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was found to be without merit and dismissed to avoid...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.