National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk and Another (J735/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 215 (26 May 2011)
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the review application expeditiously and did not provide any explanation for the delay between the filing of the application and the enforcement of the award. The applicant did not demonstrate good prospects of success in the review application. The cost of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 215
- Parties
- Applicant: National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Van Wyk, Elloise Daphne; Respondent: J P Rheeder N.O.
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J735/11
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Enforcement and Review of Arbitration Award
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- Pather AJ
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Enforcement, Review of Arbitration Award, Rescission of Award, Delay in Prosecution
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Van Wyk, Elloise Daphne
Respondent
J P Rheeder N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Enforcement and Review of Arbitration Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant prosecuted the review application expeditiously.
- 2 Whether the stay of enforcement of the arbitration award should be granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant has good prospects of success in the review application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the review application expeditiously and did not provide any explanation for the delay between the filing of the application and the enforcement of the award. The applicant did not demonstrate good prospects of success in the review application. The cost of further litigation would likely exceed the compensation awarded to the first respondent. Accordingly, the application for a stay of enforcement and review was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application for a stay of enforcement and review of the arbitration award is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
PATHER AJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: J735/11
Not reportable
In the matter between
NATIONAL REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD ............................................................Applicant
and
VAN WYK, ELLOISE DAPHNE ............................................................First Respondent
J P RHEEDER N.O. .........................................................................Second Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
[1] In this matter I have read the papers and I am not convinced that the applicant has prosecuted the review application expeditiously.
This is against the background of the following facts:
[2] An award by default was issued on 26 July 2009.
[3] This was rescinded on 6 September 2009.
[4] The award, which is the subject of review proceedings, was issued on 21 January 2010.
[5] The applicant/employer applied for that award to be rescinded.
[6] A rescission ruling in terms of which the application was refused was issued on 6 April 2010.
[7] The application for a stay of enforcement of that award and the review of the arbitration award dated 21 January 2010 was filed
during June 2010, some two months later.
[8] The writ was issued on 11 November 2010. This, despite the applicant/employer's application during June 2010.
[9] In this regard, no explanation is provided as to what transpired in the intervening period that is, between June 2010 and November
2010. In other words how could the first respondent have successfully enforced the award if the applicant's application was properly before the Court?
[10] Therefore I make the following order.
In any event the cost of further litigation will surely eventually exceed the amount of the compensation awarded to the first
respondent on 21 January 2010. Furthermore, as the applicant does not appear to have good prospects of success in the review
application, this application is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
______________________
Pather AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Date of hearing: 26 May 2011
Date of Judgement: 26 May 2011
Appearances:
For the Applicant: P. Strydom for Louis Block c/o Jarvis Jacobs
Raubenheimer Inc
For the Respondent:
3