McDonald v TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd and Others (J1886/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 222 (18 June 2018)

McDonald v TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd and Others (J1886/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 222 (18 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the urgency of the application, as required by Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules. The applicant was aware of the respondents' conduct for nearly three months before bringing the application and did not justify the need for urgent relief or the abridgement of timeframes. The court held that the urgency was self-created and that the application should be struck off the roll for want of urgency. No order as to costs was made, in line with the principles of law and fairness in labour matters.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 222
Parties
Applicant: Matthew George McDonald; Respondent: TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Charles Peter Victor Molyneux Urban; Respondent: Renato Ramos; Respondent: Kenneth Brett Fisher; Respondent: Penny Arends; Respondent: Sheriff Sandton North
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2018
Case Number
J 1886/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Striking Off Roll, Costs Award, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Labour Law Urgency in Applications Striking Off Roll Costs Award Contempt of Court

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew George McDonald

Applicant

TRSS 24 Hour Reaction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Charles Peter Victor Molyneux Urban

Respondent

Renato Ramos

Respondent

Kenneth Brett Fisher

Respondent

Penny Arends

Respondent

Sheriff Sandton North

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted in contempt of court by removing attached goods.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sought, including costs and reimbursement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the urgency of the application, as required by Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules. The applicant was aware of the respondents' conduct for nearly three months before bringing the application and did not justify the need for urgent relief or the abridgement of timeframes. The court held that the urgency was self-created and that the application should be struck off the roll for want of urgency. No order as to costs was made, in line with the principles of law and fairness in labour matters.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • This application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.