South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services (JS1280/09) [2013] ZALCJHB 111 (2 May 2013)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services (JS1280/09) [2013] ZALCJHB 111 (2 May 2013)

The Court found that the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of its admission that the strike was protected. The concession regarding the protected nature of the strike was recorded throughout the pleadings and in the pre-trial minutes, which are binding unless special circumstances justify amendment. The respondent's explanation related only to its position prior to litigation and did not account for the error in the pleadings. The Court held that the respondent did not demonstrate that the applicants would not suffer prejudice if the amendment was granted. Furthermore, the agreement between the parties that the Court should sit as arbitrator under...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 111
Parties
Applicant: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union; Applicant: W Masina and 42 Others; Respondent: Collett Armed Security Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2013
Case Number
JS1280/09
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Opposition Prior to Trial
Outcome
Respondent's application to amend its statement of defence is dismissed with costs. The agreement that the Court should sit as arbitrator is declared to be of no force and effect. The main action is postponed to 2 September 2013, with costs on attorney and client scale to be paid by the respondent.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Protected Strike, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Pre Trial Minutes, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Protected Strike Automatic Unfair Dismissal Pre Trial Minutes Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

W Masina and 42 Others

Applicant

Collett Armed Security Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Opposition Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to amend its statement of opposition to withdraw its admission that the strike was protected.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement that the Court should sit as arbitrator in terms of section 158(2)(b) of the LRA is valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants would suffer prejudice if the amendment is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of its admission that the strike was protected. The concession regarding the protected nature of the strike was recorded throughout the pleadings and in the pre-trial minutes, which are binding unless special circumstances justify amendment. The respondent's explanation related only to its position prior to litigation and did not account for the error in the pleadings. The Court held that the respondent did not demonstrate that the applicants would not suffer prejudice if the amendment was granted. Furthermore, the agreement between the parties that the Court should sit as arbitrator under...

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to amend its statement of defence is dismissed with costs. The agreement that the Court should sit as arbitrator is declared to be of no force and effect. The main action is postponed to 2 September 2013, with costs on attorney and client scale to be paid by the respondent.

Orders

  • The agreement between the parties that the Court should sit as an arbitrator is declared to be of no force and effect.
  • The respondent's application to amend its statement of defence is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the matter standing down on 29 April 2013.