Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd v Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and Others (J1580/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 100 (15 March 2016)
The court found that none of AMCU's six grounds of appeal had merit. The judge was aware of the fact that the application was unopposed and considered the applicant's alleged blameworthiness, but determined that a punitive costs order was warranted due to AMCU's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 100
- Parties
- Applicant: Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU); Respondent: 166 Employees of Applicant and Members of First Respondent
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J1580/15
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Myburgh
- Legal Topics
- Costs Orders, Punitive Costs, Leave to Appeal, Union Liability
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU)
Respondent
166 Employees of Applicant and Members of First Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a punitive costs order made against AMCU.
- 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting leave to appeal a costs order.
- 3 Whether the court erred in its assessment of AMCU's conduct and the applicant's alleged blameworthiness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of AMCU's six grounds of appeal had merit. The judge was aware of the fact that the application was unopposed and considered the applicant's alleged blameworthiness, but determined that a punitive costs order was warranted due to AMCU's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful conduct by its members. The court held that the case law cited was consistent with the order made, and that the union's conduct justified the costs order. The existence of other remedies for the applicant did not detract from the appropriateness of the costs order. The court concluded that AMCU did not have reasonable prospects of success on appeal, especially as the appeal...
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: J1580/15
DATE: 15 MARCH 2016
In the matter between:
VERULAM SAWMILLS (PTY) LTD.....................................................................................Applicant
And
ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND
CONSTRUCTION UNION (‘AMCU’)......................................................................First Respondent
166 EMPLOYEES OF APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF
FIRST RESPONDENT.....................................................................Second and Further Respondents
Decided in chambers
Date: 15 March 2016
JUDGMENT IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MYBURGH, AJ
[1] AMCU and its members (the respondents in the main application) seek leave to appeal against my judgment in this matter, in which I ordered AMCU to pay the costs of an urgent application for an interdict on the attorney-and-client scale.
[2] It is trite law that leave to appeal against an order as to costs will not be given lightly. Indeed, it appears implicit from section 16(2)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 that leave to appeal against a costs order should only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”.
[3] In its application for leave to appeal and written submissions, AMCU advances six grounds of appeal, each of which is addressed in turn below.
[4] Firstly, AMCU contends that the court misdirected itself in failing to consider that the application for an interdict was unopposed. There is no merit in this ground of appeal. Not only is it apparent from the judgment that I was alive to this issue, but there is also no rule that a party can escape paying costs simply because it does not oppose the application.
[5] Secondly, AMCU contends that the court failed to take into account that the company (i.e. the applicant in the main application) was not blameless. As appears from my judgment, I was alive to the allegations that the company had not furnished buses and that it had disconnected the supply of water and electricity to the hostels, which was restored inside of a day (see paras 9(c), 9(d) and 19). Despite these allegations, I considered a punitive costs order warranted for the reasons explained in my judgment.
[6] Thirdly, AMCU contends that the court failed to consider that the company deliberately and intentionally attempted to frustrate the strike and thereby antagonised the striking employees. This is essentially a repetition of the second point, which I have already addressed. Furthermore, it is by no means clear to me that a link was established on the papers between this alleged conduct and the conduct of the strikers; and it certainly is not any justification for the inaction of AMCU described in my judgment.
[7] Fourthly, AMCU contends that the court failed to holistically consider the relevant case law, and focused only on those cases against AMCU, which were in any event (so it is contended) distinguishable. I do not believe that there is any merit in this. The case law cited in my judgment is consistent with the order that I made.
[8] Fifthly, AMCU contends that the court erred in making a punitive order as to costs because there was no evidence to establish that the union had conducted itself improperly. I also do not believe there to be any merit in this contention. I was not presiding over a case involving whether or not AMCU was in contempt of court, but rather over a case regarding whether it should be held liable for the costs of an urgent application in circumstances where its members conducted themselves unlawfully, and where the union itself failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they did not do so.
[9] Sixthly, and finally, AMCU contends that the court failed to consider that the company has a remedy in law to recuperate its losses in the event that it is able to prove that it suffered any. Even if this contention is correct, it does not detract from the fact that, in my view, a punitive costs order was warranted.
[10] In the circumstances, I do not believe that AMCU has reasonable prospects of success on appeal, particularly given that the appeal relates only to an order as to costs.
[11] In the premises, the following order is made: the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Myburgh, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa