Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii 

[1]  The applicant (AMCU) seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of its application.

[2]  AMCU’s first ground of appeal is that I erred in distinguishing the judgments in Caxton, Industrial Health Resources Group and Baleni.  My judgment gave reasons for finding that AMCU’s reliance on those judgments does not support its case. This ground of appeal raises nothing new which was not already considered in my judgment and has not, in my view, provided any sound reason for a departure from those reasons.

[3]  The second and related third grounds of appeal are that I erred in finding that the requirements for mandatory interdict were not met because AMCU has an appropriate alternative remedy provided by PAIA and that, in the circumstances, given the third-party interests involved, it was mandatory for AMCU to use the remedies provided by PAIA.  Here again, this was all dealt with in my judgment and, in my view, AMCU has provided no sound reason to depart from those findings.

[4]  In the circumstances I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and consequently the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed with costs.