About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZALCJHB 165
|
|
B Sure Insurance Advisors (Pty) Ltd V Schnepel and Another (J29/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 165 (11 April 2024)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Reportable
Case
No: J29/24
In the matter between:
B
SURE INSURANCE ADVISORS (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
WARREN
SCHNEPEL
First Respondent
MONT
BLANC FINANCIAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Second Respondent
Heard:
In chambers
Delivered:
11 April 2024
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties
and legal representatives by email. The date of hand-down
is deemed
to be 11 April 2024.
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1]
On 22 March 2024, this Court dismissed the applicant’s
application to enforce a restraint of trade agreement with
no order
as to costs. The primary basis upon which the application was
dismissed was that the applicant failed to prove that the
second
respondent was its competitor.
[2]
The applicant has applied for leave to appeal. Subsequently, both
parties filed their written submissions in terms of
Rule 30(3A) of
the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court, read
with clause 15 of the Practice Manual of the
Labour Court of South
Africa.
[3]
The
applicant filed supplementary written submissions and further written
submissions in reply to the first respondent’s written
submissions. This prompted the first respondent to file supplementary
written submissions to the applicant’s supplementary
submissions and a request to make further written submissions to the
applicant’s replying submissions. The applicant then
filed an
opposition to the first respondent’s request for further
submissions. If both parties read and considered the above
provisions, these unnecessary further submissions would have been
avoided. The Rules and Practice Manual do not make provision
for
supplementary or replying submissions, certainly not without leave of
this Court. I therefore reject these supplementary submissions.
In
any event, these submissions are of no assistance to this Court. The
test applicable in applications for leave to appeal is
trite.
[1]
[4]
Having considered the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought,
the written submissions filed by the applicant and
the first
respondent, the test for leave to appeal and having reflected on the
judgment, I find that the appeal would have no prospects
of success
(with or without the replying submissions) and there are no
compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly,
the
application for leave to appeal is refused.
[5]
In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court
of South Africa
[1]
Section
17
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.