Apart from the above, this is not a point that has never arisen before the second respondent. The second respondent asked whether he was competent to arbitrate the dispute and whether there was an obligation for the applicant to present a defence submission within a specified time frame. The second respondent found that if the dispute resolution process required the issuance of a certificate of result and a certificate of result had not been issued, he was not competent to resolve the dispute.  In addition, if the collective litigation agreement invoked sends a defence brief, the applicant is required to request and grant a donation, otherwise the applicant would be stripped of her right to be heard.  Summary: Request for review and annulment of the sentence. Sentence issued as a result of a judgment of the arbitrator which prevents the plaintiff from defending the dismissal dispute. The Bar`s decision on the basis of the application of the SSSBC agreement in issue and the interpretation of various previous decisions. Application of changes to legislation governing dispute resolution procedures for 60-year disputes. Changes to the SSSBC litigation procedure in force from the effective date have come into effect, even though the disputes were taken into account before it came into force. The arbitrator applied the provisions of the wrong dispute settlement procedure collective agreement.
The collective agreement applicable to the litigation procedure did not require the applicant to respond. The arbitrator did not have the power to pass a decision preventing the applicant from defending the case. No prior decision was taken to deny the applicant the refusal to file her defence brief late. The arbitrator applied an erroneous collective agreement, overstepped the powers that apologized for the collective agreement by refusing the applicant to defend the case, misinterpreted previous decisions and had the impact of previous decisions on the applicant`s status in defending the case. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside and referred to the third respondent for determined on the merits of de novo.  The transcript reflects the fact that the opponent`s agent on the first appeal argued that the dispute resolution procedure applicable to the parties, which binds the parties, was the previous agreement, which he characterized as the 2003/2004 agreement. This is the basis on which the matter was negotiated before Commissioner Lisa Williams-De Beer. (a) The opponent of the first appeal invokes collective agreement 02/2001 of February 13, 2001, which, in point 3.5 e), contained the requirement for the plaintiff to make a defence submission within 10 working days of receiving a referral, and continued to do so at all stages of the case before the third respondent.
It appears that this collective agreement applied at the time of the first appeal by the opponent on November 15, 2003 or around November 15, 2003.  The applicant submitted that the applicable dispute settlement agreement, which applied to the case at the time the case was tried before the second respondent, was collective agreement 1 of 2008.  In my view, the above findings are sufficient to grant the discharge requested by the applicant. The second respondent`s appeal to the defective litigation proceedings, which was not closed in terms of tariffs, had a major impact on his assessment of the issues before him, which resulted in an unjustifiable conclusion.  Both parties made additional arguments to address a question of law raised by the Court.