Premier Valves (Pty) Ltd v Mckie (JS 491/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 127 (8 August 2020)

Premier Valves (Pty) Ltd v Mckie (JS 491/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 127 (8 August 2020)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing its Statement of Response was unsatisfactory, consisting of general averments about restructuring, unavailability of personnel, and personal bereavement, none of which were substantiated by documentation or confirmatory affidavits. The applicant also failed to explain its non-compliance with a court order to file the condonation application by a specified date. Despite the excessive delay, the court considered that the matter was at an advanced stage, with pleadings closed and only pre-trial minutes outstanding. The interests of justice favored granting condonation to allow the dispute to be fully ventilated, rather...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 127
Parties
Applicant: Premier Valves (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wendy Joyce Mckie
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2020
Case Number
JS 491/18
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Response
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's Statement of Response is granted, with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Pleadings, Operational Requirements Dismissal, Practice Manual Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Pleadings Operational Requirements Dismissal Practice Manual Compliance

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premier Valves (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Wendy Joyce Mckie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Response

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of its Statement of Response.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and satisfactory.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require condonation to be granted despite the excessive delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing its Statement of Response was unsatisfactory, consisting of general averments about restructuring, unavailability of personnel, and personal bereavement, none of which were substantiated by documentation or confirmatory affidavits. The applicant also failed to explain its non-compliance with a court order to file the condonation application by a specified date. Despite the excessive delay, the court considered that the matter was at an advanced stage, with pleadings closed and only pre-trial minutes outstanding. The interests of justice favored granting condonation to allow the dispute to be fully ventilated, rather...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's Statement of Response is granted, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The late filing of the Applicant’s Statement of Response is condoned.
  • The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application, inclusive of the wasted costs occasioned by a postponement of these proceedings on 14 July 2020.