{"issue_text":"Whether Notice of Response is fatally defective for want of an opposing affidavit","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Notice filed without affidavit, Rule 19(2)a requirement"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent is barred for failure to file heads of argument","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"No separate heads filed, respondent claimed notice was its argument"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent's representative has necessary authority","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Only General Manager letter produced, no board resolution"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Notice of Response is defective for want of form","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Form LC 2 not used"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant union appealed against the respondent company, and the respondent filed a Notice of Response on 9 November 2023. The appellant raised four points in limine challenging the validity of the response, including failure to attach an opposing affidavit, failure to file heads of argument, lack of proper authority for the representative, and defective form.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases