Alberts v Capell and Another (25091/12) [2021] ZAGPJHC 512 (11 June 2021)

Alberts v Capell and Another (25091/12) [2021] ZAGPJHC 512 (11 June 2021)

The court found that the parties were bound by the terms of the 2013 Order, which appointed Mr Nagle as referee with final and binding powers to determine the value and division of the properties and assets. Mr Nagle complied with his mandate, and his report was objective and equitable. The applicant's challenge to the valuation date was rejected, as the referee was empowered to select the date in accordance with the order. The respondent's attempt to substitute a later valuation was dismissed due to lack of evidence of expertise, failure to reconcile the valuation date, and absence of proof of irregularity in the original valuation. The parties were ordered to implement the findings of...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 512
Parties
Applicant: Wendy-Ann Alberts; Respondent: Paula Joanne Capell; Respondent: David Nagle
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2021
Case Number
25091/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; counter-application partially granted. The findings in the referee's report are final and binding. Transfer of properties ordered. Each party to pay her own costs.
Judges
Turner AJ
Legal Topics
Referee Report, Co Ownership Dissolution, Valuation of Property, Final and Binding Expert Determination, Transfer of Immovable Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Referee Report Co Ownership Dissolution Valuation of Property Final and Binding Expert Determination Transfer of Immovable Property

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy-Ann Alberts

Applicant

Paula Joanne Capell

Respondent

David Nagle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the findings in the referee's report are final and binding on the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the valuation date chosen by the referee can be substituted or modified.
  3. 3 Whether the alternative valuation obtained by the respondent should replace the referee's valuation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties were bound by the terms of the 2013 Order, which appointed Mr Nagle as referee with final and binding powers to determine the value and division of the properties and assets. Mr Nagle complied with his mandate, and his report was objective and equitable. The applicant's challenge to the valuation date was rejected, as the referee was empowered to select the date in accordance with the order. The respondent's attempt to substitute a later valuation was dismissed due to lack of evidence of expertise, failure to reconcile the valuation date, and absence of proof of irregularity in the original valuation. The parties were ordered to implement the findings of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; counter-application partially granted. The findings in the referee's report are final and binding. Transfer of properties ordered. Each party to pay her own costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The findings in Mr Nagle's report, dated 12 February 2016, including his determination of the valuation date, are final and binding.