Van Schalkwyk v Spoornet (D1110/99) [2000] ZALC 42 (6 June 2000)

Van Schalkwyk v Spoornet (D1110/99) [2000] ZALC 42 (6 June 2000)

The court found that the amendment to section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act was procedural and intended to be retrospective from 1 February 1999. The applicant had until 1 February 1999 to refer his dispute to the Labour Court but only did so on 8 October 1999, well outside the 90-day period. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it vaguely to his union and attorney, and did not demonstrate any prospects of success beyond a bare assertion. The court held that neither criterion for condonation was met and dismissed the application for condonation. No order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 42
Parties
Applicant: J W Van Schalkwyk; Respondent: Spoornet
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2000
Case Number
D1110/99
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation Application
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
Lyster
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Retrospectivity of Legislation, Automatic Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Retrospectivity of Legislation Automatic Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J W Van Schalkwyk

Applicant

Spoornet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter in the absence of a formal condonation application for late filing of the statement of case.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act applied retrospectively to the applicant's referral.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay and demonstrated prospects of success to justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the amendment to section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act was procedural and intended to be retrospective from 1 February 1999. The applicant had until 1 February 1999 to refer his dispute to the Labour Court but only did so on 8 October 1999, well outside the 90-day period. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it vaguely to his union and attorney, and did not demonstrate any prospects of success beyond a bare assertion. The court held that neither criterion for condonation was met and dismissed the application for condonation. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.