About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZALCJHB 215
|
|
National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk and Another (J735/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 215 (26 May 2011)
PATHER AJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: J735/11
Not reportable
In the matter between
NATIONAL REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD
............................................................
Applicant
and
VAN WYK, ELLOISE DAPHNE
............................................................
First
Respondent
J P RHEEDER N.O.
.........................................................................
Second
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
_____________________________________________________________
PATHER AJ
[1] In this matter I have read the papers and I am not convinced that
the applicant has prosecuted the review application expeditiously.
This is against the background of the following facts:
[2] An award by default was issued on 26 July 2009.
[3] This was rescinded on 6 September 2009.
[4] The award, which is the subject of review proceedings, was issued
on 21 January 2010.
[5] The applicant/employer applied for that award to be rescinded.
[6] A rescission ruling in terms of which the application was refused
was issued on 6 April 2010.
[7] The application for a stay of enforcement of that award and the
review of the arbitration award dated 21 January 2010 was filed
during June 2010, some two months later.
[8] The writ was issued on 11 November 2010. This, despite the
applicant/employer's application during June 2010.
[9] In this regard, no explanation is provided as to what transpired
in the intervening period that is, between June 2010 and November
2010. In other words how could the first respondent have successfully
enforced the award if the applicant's application was properly
before
the Court?
[10] Therefore I make the following order.
In any event the cost of further litigation will surely eventually
exceed the amount of the compensation awarded to the first
respondent on 21 January 2010. Furthermore, as the applicant does
not appear to have good prospects of success in the review
application, this application is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
______________________
Pather AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Date of hearing: 26 May 2011
Date of Judgement: 26 May 2011
Appearances:
For the Applicant: P. Strydom for Louis Block c/o Jarvis Jacobs
Raubenheimer Inc
For the Respondent:
3