About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 270
|
|
Hughes v Lazarus And Co (JS115/2013) [2015] ZALCJHB 270 (17 August 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Not reportable
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
C
ase
no: JS 115/2013
In
the matter between:
HUGHES, LIZETTE
APPLICANT
and
LAZARUS & CO
RESPONDENT
Heard
:
14 August 2015
Delivered
:
17 August 2015
JUDGMENT
VAN
NIEKERK J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application to condone the late referral of a dispute
concerning the applicant’s dismissal to this court for
adjudication. The certificate of outcome in question was issued on 26
September 2012. The applicant’s statement of claim
had to be
filed by no later than 26 December 2012. The statement of claim was
served and filed on 18 February 2013, some 53 days
late.
[2]
This is not an inordinate delay. Most of the respondent’s
attack, is on the merits of the application concerning the
explanation for the delay. In short, the applicant states that she
gave birth to a child during October prior to which she had been
diagnosed with high blood pressure and bed rest was recommended by
her doctor. She concedes that she was aware of the deadline
of 26
December 2012 but that when she visited her attorney’s offices
during the beginning of December 2012, the officers
had closed for
the December\January break. The applicant scheduled a consultation
with her attorney the day after the attorney’s
office reopened
and received advice to the effect that the certificate of outcome was
incorrect and that the matter should proceed
to arbitration. Counsel
was briefed to draft an application to set aside the certificate and
advised that the dispute ought properly
to be referred to this court
for adjudication.
[3]
While the applicant’s explanation might be criticised for not
being as full as it might be, in my view, it is not an unreasonable
one. It would appear from the papers that the applicant intended at
all relevant times to prosecute her claim, and that part of
the
delay, at least, can be attributed to the poor advice of her
attorney. It was also not unreasonable for the applicant to have
waited until mid-January to consult with her attorney, given the
closure of the attorney’s offices.
[4]
I am satisfied that the applicant has made out an adequate
explanation for the delay that is not excessive and that in the
circumstances, she is entitled to the order that she seeks. Given the
prevailing authorities, it is not necessary for me to assess
the
applicant’s prospects of success, and I make no findings in
that regard.
[5]
Given the broad discretion afforded the court in terms of section 162
of the Act, it seems to me that the interests of the law
and fairness
are best served by each party paying its own costs.
I
make the following order:
1.
The late referral of the applicant’s
statement of claim is condoned.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
ANDRE
VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT