Airlink cargo International (Pty) Limited v Storgate Africa (Pty) Ltd (37/02/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 39 (3 December 2002)

Airlink cargo International (Pty) Limited v Storgate Africa (Pty) Ltd (37/02/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 39 (3 December 2002)

The court found that, although the plaintiff had subrogated its rights to Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited, no evidence was presented to show the plaintiff could meet a costs order if unsuccessful. The absence of any allegation or proof of financial ability justified the applicant's concern. The court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the plaintiff would not be able to satisfy a costs order, and therefore security for costs should be ordered. The order was structured to allow the insurer, Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited, to furnish the security, failing which the plaintiff would be required to do so. The proceedings were stayed pending compliance,...

Citation
[2002] ZAGPHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Airlink Cargo International (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Storgate Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2002
Case Number
4037/02
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed pending provision of security.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Subrogation, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Subrogation Stay of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airlink Cargo International (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Storgate Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff/respondent should be ordered to provide security for costs under Rule 47(3).
  2. 2 Whether subrogation to Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited affects the obligation to provide security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff cannot meet a costs order if unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the plaintiff had subrogated its rights to Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited, no evidence was presented to show the plaintiff could meet a costs order if unsuccessful. The absence of any allegation or proof of financial ability justified the applicant's concern. The court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the plaintiff would not be able to satisfy a costs order, and therefore security for costs should be ordered. The order was structured to allow the insurer, Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited, to furnish the security, failing which the plaintiff would be required to do so. The proceedings were stayed pending compliance,...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed pending provision of security.

Orders

  • Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited must furnish security for the applicant's costs to the satisfaction of the Registrar by 28 February 2003; failing which, the plaintiff/respondent must furnish security of R30 000 within 10 days from 28 February 2003.
  • The action is stayed pending compliance with this order.