Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA and Others (C700/2008) [2008] ZALCCT 7 (7 November 2008)

Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA and Others (C700/2008) [2008] ZALCCT 7 (7 November 2008)

The court held that an interim interdict (rule nisi) that has been discharged cannot be revived except by agreement or by a fresh application for interim relief. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for a further interim interdict pending leave to appeal, as the issue in dispute (equal bonuses for hourly paid employees) was not regulated by the Main Agreement and thus did not render the strike unprotected under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not establish a prima facie right or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interim relief. Furthermore, the application was defective as it did not comply with the notice requirements of section...

Citation
[2008] ZALCCT 7
Parties
Applicant: Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: B Jacobs & 173 Others
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2008
Case Number
C700/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Confirm or Discharge Interim Interdict
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged with costs; interim interdict not revived or confirmed.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Strike Action, Collective Agreement, Leave to Appeal, Balance of Convenience
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Strike Action Collective Agreement Leave to Appeal Balance of Convenience

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

NUMSA

Respondent

B Jacobs & 173 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Confirm or Discharge Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court can revive an interim interdict (rule nisi) that has been discharged.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for granting a further interim interdict pending leave to appeal have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the strike action by the respondents is protected under the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an interim interdict (rule nisi) that has been discharged cannot be revived except by agreement or by a fresh application for interim relief. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for a further interim interdict pending leave to appeal, as the issue in dispute (equal bonuses for hourly paid employees) was not regulated by the Main Agreement and thus did not render the strike unprotected under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant did not establish a prima facie right or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interim relief. Furthermore, the application was defective as it did not comply with the notice requirements of section...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged with costs; interim interdict not revived or confirmed.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 26 September 2008 is discharged with costs.
  • No interim interdict is granted pending leave to appeal or appeal.