Strauss v Investec Group Limited (JS173/2003) [2003] ZALC 118; [2004] 4 BLLR 405 (LC); (2004) 25 ILJ 576 (LC) (28 November 2003)

Strauss v Investec Group Limited (JS173/2003) [2003] ZALC 118; [2004] 4 BLLR 405 (LC); (2004) 25 ILJ 576 (LC) (28 November 2003)

The court found that the proposed amendment did not introduce entirely new particulars, as the applicant had previously referred to relevant dates in his CCMA referral form. The difference between the dates mentioned (8 October 2002 and 24 October 2002) was immaterial, as both would fall within the prescribed period if the referral was made on 7 November 2002. The respondent's objection regarding jurisdiction and time limits had already been raised in its response and would be ventilated at trial. The amendment would not cause prejudice to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs or adjournment. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure proper ventilation of the dispute and...

Citation
[2003] ZALC 118
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Pieter Strauss; Respondent: Investec Group Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2003
Case Number
JS173/2003
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for amendment of the applicant's statement of claim granted.
Judges
Ndlovu AJ
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction, Condonation, Prejudice, Time Limits
Labour Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction Condonation Prejudice Time Limits

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Pieter Strauss

Applicant

Investec Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be permitted to amend his statement of claim to include additional facts and dates relating to his alleged unfair dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent that cannot be compensated by a costs order or adjournment.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment is intended to circumvent statutory time limits for referral of disputes to the CCMA and whether this affects the court's jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendment did not introduce entirely new particulars, as the applicant had previously referred to relevant dates in his CCMA referral form. The difference between the dates mentioned (8 October 2002 and 24 October 2002) was immaterial, as both would fall within the prescribed period if the referral was made on 7 November 2002. The respondent's objection regarding jurisdiction and time limits had already been raised in its response and would be ventilated at trial. The amendment would not cause prejudice to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs or adjournment. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure proper ventilation of the dispute and...

Court Disposition

Application for amendment of the applicant's statement of claim granted.

Orders

  • The application for amendment of the applicant's statement of claim is granted.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment, save for the costs of opposition.