30/06/2026
Today we received a disappointing Rule 25 ruling refusing our client legal representation in a labour matter.
An initial ruling refusing legal representation was issued. We applied for rescission because the ruling had been made before our reply had been considered. The rescission application succeeded.
The Rule 25 application was then reconsidered on the complete set of papers, but the fresh ruling maintained the refusal.
The arbitration is not, in our view, a simple dispute. It involves extensive technical and documentary issues which will have to be properly tested during arbitration.
What makes the ruling particularly disappointing is that it accepts the extent of the evidence and that the issues are likely to require careful factual and evidentiary consideration, but still refuses legal representation.
A lot of weight is put on the fact that the applicant has personal knowledge of the events and that the employer will be represented internally. Respectfully, that is where we believe the difficulty lies.
Personal knowledge of events is not the same as the ability to conduct an arbitration. The distinction has already been clarified by the Labour Court in respect of equality of arms.
Simply, the comparative ability of the parties was not dealt with to the extent required and expected.
But this is not the end of the road. You do not always get the ruling you believe is correct. Sometimes you just have to push forward, build the record, preserve the point, and take the matter to further.
