Alenson v A B Brickworks (Pty) Ltd (554/90) [1992] ZASCA 124; 1993 (1) SA 62 (AD); (1 September 1992)

Alenson v A B Brickworks (Pty) Ltd (554/90) [1992] ZASCA 124; 1993 (1) SA 62 (AD); (1 September 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 6 of the settlement agreement imposed a clear obligation on the appellant to refund 50% of any additional taxation paid by the respondent following reassessment by the Receiver of Revenue for financial years prior to the effective date. The court rejected the appellant's argument that liability only arose if the reassessment was proven correct in fact and law, finding this interpretation artificial and contrary to the contract's wording and purpose. The court accepted the trial court's pro rata allocation for the 1985 tax year as reasonable, given the annualised approach of the Receiver and the effective date's significance. However, the court...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 124
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Alenson; Respondent: A B Brickworks (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 1992
Case Number
554/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to the qualifying fees of the expert witness; order allowing qualifying fees set aside; costs awarded to respondent including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Milne, Van Coller, Krieger
Legal Topics
Contractual Indemnity, Income Tax Reassessment, Interpretation of Contract, Qualifying Fees, Directors Remuneration
Commercial and Corporate Tax Law Contractual Indemnity Income Tax Reassessment Interpretation of Contract Qualifying Fees Directors Remuneration

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Alenson

Appellant

A B Brickworks (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6 of the settlement agreement obliged the appellant to refund 50% of additional taxation paid by the respondent following reassessment by the Receiver of Revenue.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its pro rata allocation of the indemnity for the 1985 tax year.
  3. 3 Whether the qualifying fees of the expert witness Urquhart were properly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 6 of the settlement agreement imposed a clear obligation on the appellant to refund 50% of any additional taxation paid by the respondent following reassessment by the Receiver of Revenue for financial years prior to the effective date. The court rejected the appellant's argument that liability only arose if the reassessment was proven correct in fact and law, finding this interpretation artificial and contrary to the contract's wording and purpose. The court accepted the trial court's pro rata allocation for the 1985 tax year as reasonable, given the annualised approach of the Receiver and the effective date's significance. However, the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to the qualifying fees of the expert witness; order allowing qualifying fees set aside; costs awarded to respondent including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo allowing the qualifying fees of the expert witness Urquhart is set aside.
  • Save as aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.