Solidarity obo Roos v South African Police Services (JS1043/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 117 (12 March 2014)

Solidarity obo Roos v South African Police Services (JS1043/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 117 (12 March 2014)

The court found that the respondent's application for postponement was made very late and that the respondent was not ready to proceed, as its witnesses were still to be consulted. The court held that, had the application been brought earlier, the matter could have been removed from the roll, thereby avoiding wasted costs. The respondent's lack of preparedness and late application justified an order for wasted costs against it. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs for 7 and 8 November 2013 occasioned by the postponement.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 117
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity obo Roos; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Case Number
JS1043/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Wasted Costs Order
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs for 7 and 8 November 2013.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Postponement, Wasted Costs, Costs Award
Labour Law Postponement Wasted Costs 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solidarity obo Roos

Applicant

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Wasted Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on 7 and 8 November 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement was made timeously and with sufficient justification.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's application for postponement was made very late and that the respondent was not ready to proceed, as its witnesses were still to be consulted. The court held that, had the application been brought earlier, the matter could have been removed from the roll, thereby avoiding wasted costs. The respondent's lack of preparedness and late application justified an order for wasted costs against it. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs for 7 and 8 November 2013 occasioned by the postponement.

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs for 7 and 8 November 2013.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay the wasted costs for 7 and 8 November 2013, occasioned by the postponement.