Murray v De Necker Dentistry Incorporated (C350/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 35; (2024) 45 ILJ 2038 (LC) (27 June 2023)

Murray v De Necker Dentistry Incorporated (C350/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 35; (2024) 45 ILJ 2038 (LC) (27 June 2023)

The court held that the obligation to convene a pre-trial conference under subrule 6(4)(a) of the Labour Court Rules is shared by both parties. The respondent's refusal to cooperate with the applicant's request for a pre-trial conference and its insistence on a condonation application was unjustified. Subrule 6(7) only applies where a party fails to attend a pre-trial conference that has actually been convened, which was not the case here. No pre-trial conference was ever convened, and thus the applicant was not required to apply for condonation. The respondent should have either cooperated or requested the registrar to refer the matter to a judge for directions. The respondent's conduct...

Citation
[2023] ZALCCT 35
Parties
Applicant: Estelle Murray; Respondent: De Necker Dentistry Incorporated
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Case Number
C350/2021
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation Application for Failure to Convene Pre Trial Conference
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed as unnecessary; respondent ordered to cooperate and pay costs.
Judges
Liziwe Xoliswa Dzai
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Conference, Condonation, Labour Court Rules, Costs in Labour Matters
Labour Law Civil Procedure Pre Trial Conference Condonation Labour Court Rules Costs in Labour Matters

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estelle Murray

Applicant

De Necker Dentistry Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation Application for Failure to Convene Pre Trial Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's failure to convene a pre-trial conference within 10 days of the response gives rise to a duty to apply for condonation under subrule 6(7) of the Labour Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether both parties share the obligation to convene a pre-trial conference under subrule 6(4)(a) and Uniform Rule 37(2)(b).
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's refusal to cooperate with the applicant's request for a pre-trial conference was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the obligation to convene a pre-trial conference under subrule 6(4)(a) of the Labour Court Rules is shared by both parties. The respondent's refusal to cooperate with the applicant's request for a pre-trial conference and its insistence on a condonation application was unjustified. Subrule 6(7) only applies where a party fails to attend a pre-trial conference that has actually been convened, which was not the case here. No pre-trial conference was ever convened, and thus the applicant was not required to apply for condonation. The respondent should have either cooperated or requested the registrar to refer the matter to a judge for directions. The respondent's conduct...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed as unnecessary; respondent ordered to cooperate and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent shall respond to the applicant's request for a pre-trial conference, dated 6 May 2022, within 5 days of this Order.
  • The parties shall hold a pre-trial conference within 10 days of this Order.