NUMSA and Another v Atlantis Foundries (Pty) Ltd and Others (C490/2006) [2011] ZALCCT 39 (9 December 2011)

NUMSA and Another v Atlantis Foundries (Pty) Ltd and Others (C490/2006) [2011] ZALCCT 39 (9 December 2011)

The applicants delayed for over four and a half years in prosecuting their review application, with no proper or sufficient explanation provided for the delay. The explanation offered by the applicants and their attorneys was either absent or inadequate, amounting to negligent conduct. The delay is inordinate and has prejudiced the respondents, who are now required to oppose a stale application. The court has the inherent power to dismiss applications for unreasonable delay, even in the absence of an express rule. The constitutional right to access the courts does not entitle a party to prosecute claims without reasonable diligence. The application to dismiss the review is granted, and...

Citation
[2011] ZALCCT 39
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA; Applicant: McLaren Holloway; Respondent: Atlantis Foundries (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ursula Bulbring N.O; Respondent: MEIBC
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2011
Case Number
C490/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Unreasonable Delay
Outcome
Application to dismiss the review application is granted; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
K M Savage
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Review of Arbitration Award, Abuse of Process, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unreasonable Delay Review of Arbitration Award Abuse of Process Costs Award

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA

Applicant

McLaren Holloway

Applicant

Atlantis Foundries (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ursula Bulbring N.O

Respondent

MEIBC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Unreasonable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' delay of over four and a half years in prosecuting the review application constitutes unreasonable delay warranting dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation provided by the applicants and their attorneys for the delay is sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the delay prejudices the respondents and constitutes an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants delayed for over four and a half years in prosecuting their review application, with no proper or sufficient explanation provided for the delay. The explanation offered by the applicants and their attorneys was either absent or inadequate, amounting to negligent conduct. The delay is inordinate and has prejudiced the respondents, who are now required to oppose a stale application. The court has the inherent power to dismiss applications for unreasonable delay, even in the absence of an express rule. The constitutional right to access the courts does not entitle a party to prosecute claims without reasonable diligence. The application to dismiss the review is granted, and...

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the review application is granted; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the review application is granted.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the third respondent's costs.