Noriega v Sony South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS45/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 151 (8 May 2017)

Noriega v Sony South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS45/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 151 (8 May 2017)

The court found that the applicant's attorney received proper notice of the trial date and failed to attend due to his own error, which was not satisfactorily explained. The delay in bringing the rescission application was unexplained. The applicant failed to address the prospects of success in the main action, which is a fatal omission. The evidence indicated that the applicant was aware of the commission calculation basis from his employment letter, and no credible evidence was provided to support the claim that he only became aware of the necessary facts after January 2010. The court was not persuaded that commission payments constituted remuneration as defined in the BCEA, nor that...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 151
Parties
Applicant: Raul Noriega; Respondent: Sony South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2017
Case Number
JS45/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed.
Judges
Golden
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Prescription Act, Commission Disputes, Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Prescription Act Commission Disputes Basic Conditions of Employment Act

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raul Noriega

Applicant

Sony South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment granted on 20 March 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his absence at trial and delay in bringing the rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a bona fide defence with prospects of success against the prescription plea.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's attorney received proper notice of the trial date and failed to attend due to his own error, which was not satisfactorily explained. The delay in bringing the rescission application was unexplained. The applicant failed to address the prospects of success in the main action, which is a fatal omission. The evidence indicated that the applicant was aware of the commission calculation basis from his employment letter, and no credible evidence was provided to support the claim that he only became aware of the necessary facts after January 2010. The court was not persuaded that commission payments constituted remuneration as defined in the BCEA, nor that...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.