Mortimer and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay (P469/11) [2014] ZALCPE 19 (30 July 2014)

Mortimer and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay (P469/11) [2014] ZALCPE 19 (30 July 2014)

The Labour Court held that costs are not automatically due by the party withdrawing a matter. Rule 13(1)(b) requires proper notice and grounds for a costs application, which the respondent did not strictly comply with, but substantial compliance was found. The applicants acted reasonably in approaching the court due to unresolved issues regarding the transport allowance and did not act with mala fides or unreasonably. The respondent was not before the court with clean hands, as it had not resolved the underlying dispute. In terms of section 162 of the LRA, fairness dictated that no costs order should be made against the applicants. The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 19
Parties
Applicant: Berry Mortimer & Others; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Case Number
P469/11
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Main Dispute
Outcome
Respondent's application for costs is dismissed.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Action, Costs Award, Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Rule 13 Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Action Costs Award Unfair Labour Practice Jurisdiction of Labour Court Rule 13 Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Mortimer & Others

Applicant

Nelson Mandela Bay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Main Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against applicants who withdrew their claim without tendering costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with Rule 13(1)(b) in seeking a costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants acted unreasonably in approaching the Labour Court despite jurisdictional challenges.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that costs are not automatically due by the party withdrawing a matter. Rule 13(1)(b) requires proper notice and grounds for a costs application, which the respondent did not strictly comply with, but substantial compliance was found. The applicants acted reasonably in approaching the court due to unresolved issues regarding the transport allowance and did not act with mala fides or unreasonably. The respondent was not before the court with clean hands, as it had not resolved the underlying dispute. In terms of section 162 of the LRA, fairness dictated that no costs order should be made against the applicants. The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.