Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
July v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J2344/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 324 (21 October 2019)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent review of a CCMA subpoena, finding no proper review basis, and held that privilege and related objections should be raised before the commissioner.
Carmichael-Brown v Liquid Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd (JS987/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 6; [2019] 7 BLLR 696 (LC) (23 January 2019)
The Court found that the respondent abused the process of subpoena by issuing it against the applicant, who is a party to the litigation, rather than following the prescribed discovery procedure under Rule 6. The subpoena did not comply with Form 3, improperly threatened the applicant and her company with criminal liability, and failed to afford procedural fairness. The Labour Court Rules require strict compliance, and the discovery process provides an opportunity for the party to object to the production of documents. The respondent failed to provide a plausible reason for not using the disc…
Source excerpt
S v Krejcir and Others (SS26-2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 454 (13 October 2014)
The court held that subpoenas issued by accused 1 were irregular and unlawful because they failed to give notice to persons with a legal interest in the documents.
S v Petersen en Anders (SS21/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 353 (14 November 2012)
The court held that cellphone records obtained under section 205 subpoenas were lawfully issued and admissible, finding the magistrates properly exercised discretion.
Building Industry Bargaining Council Cape of Good Hope (Boland Area) v Hatlin t/a Homestyles Co (C350/2000) [2001] ZALC 51; [2001] 8 BLLR 895 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1143 (LC) (6 April 2001)
The court found that the subpoena issued by the applicant did not comply with the requirements of section 142 of the Labour Relations Act, as it was not issued for the resolution of a dispute but rather for a compliance investigation. The respondent was not brought before the court to explain receipt or reasons for non-compliance, and the subpoena was served unreasonably late, providing insufficient notice. The court held that contempt cannot be found without the respondent present and that the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought. The application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
