Parkinson v Edcon Ltd (JR2644/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 540 (28 June 2016)

Parkinson v Edcon Ltd (JR2644/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 540 (28 June 2016)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the section 189A(13) application was inadequate, as the time limits are well established and ignorance or late advice does not justify non-compliance. Furthermore, the court held that section 189A(13) is intended for urgent intervention in retrenchment processes, not for cases where dismissals have already taken effect long ago. The applicant's prospects of success on the merits were found to be minimal, as the remedy sought was not appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 540
Parties
Applicant: Karin Parkinson; Respondent: Edcon Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Case Number
JR2644/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Substantive Relief Under S 189 A(13) of the Labour Relations Act
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; section 189A(13) application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Section 189a Application
Labour Law Retrenchment Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Section 189a Application

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karin Parkinson

Applicant

Edcon Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Substantive Relief Under S 189 A(13) of the Labour Relations Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application under section 189A(13) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has prospects of success on the merits of the section 189A(13) application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the section 189A(13) application was inadequate, as the time limits are well established and ignorance or late advice does not justify non-compliance. Furthermore, the court held that section 189A(13) is intended for urgent intervention in retrenchment processes, not for cases where dismissals have already taken effect long ago. The applicant's prospects of success on the merits were found to be minimal, as the remedy sought was not appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; section 189A(13) application dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the section 189A(13) application is refused.
  • The application is dismissed.