MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v NUMSA and Others (P99/14) [2014] ZALCPE 6 (21 May 2014)

MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v NUMSA and Others (P99/14) [2014] ZALCPE 6 (21 May 2014)

The court held that the applicants did not comply with the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The letter sent to the respondents did not constitute a proper notice of application, as it failed to include a notice of motion and supporting affidavits, and did not specify the relief sought. The applicants also failed to provide reasonable notice, giving less than 24 hours, and did not show good cause for a shorter period. The respondents were not afforded a fair opportunity to consider and respond to the application. Consequently, the point in limine was upheld, and the application was struck from the roll. The costs order was granted against the applicants,...

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 6
Parties
Applicant: MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: MSC Depot (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: Employees set out in the annexure to the Notice of Motion Marked 'X'
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Case Number
P99/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Secondary Strike; Point in Limine Raised and Decided
Outcome
Application struck from the roll; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Secondary Strike, Notice of Application, Urgent Interdict, Condonation, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Secondary Strike Notice of Application Urgent Interdict Condonation Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

MSC Depot (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

NUMSA

Respondent

Employees set out in the annexure to the Notice of Motion Marked 'X'

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Secondary Strike; Point in Limine Raised and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants complied with the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act before seeking an urgent interdict against a secondary strike.
  2. 2 Whether a letter expressing intention to approach the court suffices as notice of application under section 68(2) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants showed good cause for a period shorter than 48 hours' notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants did not comply with the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The letter sent to the respondents did not constitute a proper notice of application, as it failed to include a notice of motion and supporting affidavits, and did not specify the relief sought. The applicants also failed to provide reasonable notice, giving less than 24 hours, and did not show good cause for a shorter period. The respondents were not afforded a fair opportunity to consider and respond to the application. Consequently, the point in limine was upheld, and the application was struck from the roll. The costs order was granted against the applicants,...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The point in limine is upheld.
  • The application is struck from the roll.