P Moeller & Company (Pty) Ltd v Levendal and Others (D1868/2001) [2002] ZALC 40; [2002] 8 BLLR 782 (LC) (3 June 2002)

P Moeller & Company (Pty) Ltd v Levendal and Others (D1868/2001) [2002] ZALC 40; [2002] 8 BLLR 782 (LC) (3 June 2002)

The court found that the failure to serve the referral for conciliation was a formal defect but not a material one, as the applicant received notice of the conciliation and did not protest or suffer prejudice. The referral on 31 May 2001 was not premature, as the dismissal occurred on the same day, and thus the jurisdictional prerequisite for a valid referral was met. The commissioner did not commit a reviewable irregularity by issuing the certificate, as there was no evidence of improper conduct or lack of service. The applicant unreasonably delayed launching the review application and failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay. The applicant's conduct indicated a lack of...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 40
Parties
Applicant: P Moeller & Company (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Arend Levendal; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eckehard Schumann
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2002
Case Number
D1868/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation and review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Review, Service of Referral, Premature Referral, Jurisdictional Prerequisites, Reviewable Irregularity
Labour Law Condonation for Late Review Service of Referral Premature Referral Jurisdictional Prerequisites Reviewable Irregularity

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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Moeller & Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Arend Levendal

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Eckehard Schumann

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to serve the referral for conciliation on the applicant was a material defect in the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the referral for conciliation was premature and thus a nullity.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by issuing the certificate without proof of service and when the referral and dismissal occurred on the same day.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the failure to serve the referral for conciliation was a formal defect but not a material one, as the applicant received notice of the conciliation and did not protest or suffer prejudice. The referral on 31 May 2001 was not premature, as the dismissal occurred on the same day, and thus the jurisdictional prerequisite for a valid referral was met. The commissioner did not commit a reviewable irregularity by issuing the certificate, as there was no evidence of improper conduct or lack of service. The applicant unreasonably delayed launching the review application and failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay. The applicant's conduct indicated a lack of...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for late delivery of the review is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.