Naidoo v Dulux (Pty) Ltd (C335/98) [1999] ZALC 184 (19 April 1999)

Naidoo v Dulux (Pty) Ltd (C335/98) [1999] ZALC 184 (19 April 1999)

The court found that the adjournment of the matter was necessitated solely by the applicant's attorney's failure to comply with the court's directions regarding the supplementary pre-trial minute and the indexing and paginating of the court file. The attorney's explanations were inadequate, and the delay could have been avoided with proper and timely attention. The court held that the applicant should not be penalized for his attorney's conduct and ordered the applicant's attorney to pay the respondent's wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 184
Parties
Applicant: D Naidoo; Respondent: Dulux (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 1999
Case Number
C335/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Adjournment Before Trial Commencement
Outcome
Matter adjourned sine die; applicant's attorney ordered to pay respondent's wasted costs.
Judges
R M M Zondo
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Discrimination in Employment, Pre Trial Procedure, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Discrimination in Employment Pre Trial Procedure 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D Naidoo

Applicant

Dulux (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Adjournment Before Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed an unfair labour practice by not appointing the applicant due to alleged discrimination.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's attorney failed to comply with pre-trial directions, resulting in adjournment.
  3. 3 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the adjournment of the matter was necessitated solely by the applicant's attorney's failure to comply with the court's directions regarding the supplementary pre-trial minute and the indexing and paginating of the court file. The attorney's explanations were inadequate, and the delay could have been avoided with proper and timely attention. The court held that the applicant should not be penalized for his attorney's conduct and ordered the applicant's attorney to pay the respondent's wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Matter adjourned sine die; applicant's attorney ordered to pay respondent's wasted costs.

Orders

  • The matter is adjourned sine die.
  • The applicant's attorney, and not the applicant, is ordered to pay the respondent's wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment.