Rogow and Others v Sun Chemical South Africa (Pty) Limited (C375&539/2017(2)) [2023] ZALCCT 2; - (19 January 2023)

Rogow and Others v Sun Chemical South Africa (Pty) Limited (C375&539/2017(2)) [2023] ZALCCT 2; - (19 January 2023)

The court found that the applicants' attorneys were seriously negligent in failing to prosecute the semi-urgent application and disregarding a judicial directive, warranting a costs order de bonis propriis. However, the court did not find the conduct to be vexatious or reprehensible enough to justify attorney and own client costs. Regarding the main action, the court held that the delays in finalising the pre-trial minute, while unreasonable, were mitigated by circumstances including changes to the minute, deaths and retirements among applicants, and the impact of the Covid epidemic. The court found no abuse of process by the individual applicants and determined that the prejudice to the...

Citation
[2023] ZALCCT 2
Parties
Applicant: Stanley Max Rogow; Applicant: Raymond Alexander Aitchison; Applicant: Erik-Otto-Maria Appelboom; Applicant: Brett Russel Baldwin; Applicant: Alexander Reid Bremner; Applicant: Theresa Buchreiter; Applicant: Peter Jacobus Boonzaaier; Applicant: John Horan; Applicant: Dennis Patrick Jordan; Applicant: Elizabeth Ann May; Applicant: Peter Colin McCarthy; Applicant: Sivaprakasan Naicker; Applicant: Abraham Johannes Hendrikus Reijnders; Applicant: Ian George Siddall; Applicant: Soobramoney Maduray; Applicant: David John Speirs; Applicant: Leonardus Cornelius Van Onselen; Applicant: Peter John Wakes; Applicant: Roger Michael Walton; Applicant: Peter Leonard Watson; Applicant: Ernest Frederick Williams; Applicant: Stuart Charles; Applicant: Kubenthiran Govender; Applicant: Preeyevruth Deochander Isseri; Applicant: Krishna Naidoo; Applicant: David Alan Ogg; Respondent: Sun Chemical South Africa (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
C375&539/2017(2)
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Judgment on Applications to Dismiss and Costs
Outcome
The Rule 11 application to dismiss under C375/2017 is granted with costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys. The Rule 11 application to dismiss under C539/2017 is dismissed; costs are reserved for the trial court. Applicants are ordered to file the signed pre-trial minute within 10 days, failing...
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Rule 11 Applications, Abuse of Process, Delay in Prosecution, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Pre Trial Minute, Condonation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rule 11 Applications Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Costs De Bonis Propriis Pre Trial Minute Condonation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Max Rogow

Applicant

Raymond Alexander Aitchison

Applicant

Erik-Otto-Maria Appelboom

Applicant

Brett Russel Baldwin

Applicant

Alexander Reid Bremner

Applicant

Theresa Buchreiter

Applicant

Peter Jacobus Boonzaaier

Applicant

John Horan

Applicant

Dennis Patrick Jordan

Applicant

Elizabeth Ann May

Applicant

Peter Colin McCarthy

Applicant

Sivaprakasan Naicker

Applicant

Abraham Johannes Hendrikus Reijnders

Applicant

Ian George Siddall

Applicant

Soobramoney Maduray

Applicant

David John Speirs

Applicant

Leonardus Cornelius Van Onselen

Applicant

Peter John Wakes

Applicant

Roger Michael Walton

Applicant

Peter Leonard Watson

Applicant

Ernest Frederick Williams

Applicant

Stuart Charles

Applicant

Kubenthiran Govender

Applicant

Preeyevruth Deochander Isseri

Applicant

Krishna Naidoo

Applicant

David Alan Ogg

Applicant

Sun Chemical South Africa (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Judgment on Applications to Dismiss and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' failure to prosecute the semi-urgent application justifies dismissal and a punitive costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in finalising the pre-trial minute and prosecution of the main action constitutes an abuse of process warranting dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of confirmatory affidavits by individual applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' attorneys were seriously negligent in failing to prosecute the semi-urgent application and disregarding a judicial directive, warranting a costs order de bonis propriis. However, the court did not find the conduct to be vexatious or reprehensible enough to justify attorney and own client costs. Regarding the main action, the court held that the delays in finalising the pre-trial minute, while unreasonable, were mitigated by circumstances including changes to the minute, deaths and retirements among applicants, and the impact of the Covid epidemic. The court found no abuse of process by the individual applicants and determined that the prejudice to the...

Court Disposition

The Rule 11 application to dismiss under C375/2017 is granted with costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys. The Rule 11 application to dismiss under C539/2017 is dismissed; costs are reserved for the trial court. Applicants are ordered to file the signed pre-trial minute within 10 days, failing...

Orders

  • The Rule 11 application brought by the respondent in C375/2017 is granted.
  • The attorneys for the applicants, Herold Gie Incorporated, are to pay costs of the application, de bonis propriis.