I would add that on 22 September, 1997 the respondent commenced proceedings in the District Labour Court for unfair constructive dismissal and one ground upon which the applicant to the present application opposed the complaint was that the respondent was not in fact employed by the applicant but by a company registered in the Channel Islands. There then followed a letter from the applicant to the respondent advising him that he was disqualified from holding the position of director by virtue of certain criminal convictions and this was followed by the launch of the present application on 12 January, 1998. A further point advanced was that the respondent had a lien over the company assets for monies owed to him. In response to these demands the respondent's attorney adopted the stance that the demands had been made by an unauthorized person and in any event the respondent was still a director of the applicant company and as such was entitled to retain company assets. On 29 August, 1997 and again on 8 September, 1997 written demands were made for the return of the vehicle but it was not returned. In July, 1997 the respondent tendered his resignation. The brief facts as set out in the founding affidavit are as follows: The respondent was employed by the applicant and as an employee was provided with a vehicle.
The sole issue which therefore remains to be determined is that of costs. The respondent filed a notice of intention to oppose but then capitulated and returned the vehicle to the applicant without filing any answering affidavit. Respondent to return a certain vehicle to it and an order that the respondent pays the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client. : In this application the applicant sought an order directing the Vexatious to give applicant the relief sought but then fail to tender costs therefore putting applicant to expense and trouble of coming to court to obtain a costs order. INDIGO SKY GEMS (PROP) LTD versus CHRISTOPHER LYN JOHNSTONĪward of costs on attorney and client scale may be made when the proceedings are vexatious although there is no intent that they should be.
0 kommentar(er)
