Atkin and Another v Botes (12256/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 68 (26 July 2010)

Atkin and Another v Botes (12256/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 68 (26 July 2010)

The court found that the anti-dissipation order was definitive of the issue between the parties and thus appealable. Upon review of the judgment, grounds of appeal, and submissions, the court concluded that another court might reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal, with the proceeds from the sale of the immovable property to remain in trust pending the appeal.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Mark Julian Atkin; Applicant: Stuart van der Merwe Inc; Respondent: Petrus Jacobus Botes
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Case Number
12256/2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs to be costs in the appeal. Proceeds from the sale of the immovable property to remain in trust pending appeal.
Judges
T M Makgoka
Legal Topics
Anti Dissipation Order, Leave to Appeal, Interim Orders
Civil Procedure Anti Dissipation Order Leave to Appeal Interim Orders

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Julian Atkin

Applicant

Stuart van der Merwe Inc

Applicant

Petrus Jacobus Botes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anti-dissipation order is appealable as a definitive order.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether legal proceedings must be pending at the time of an anti-dissipation order application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the anti-dissipation order was definitive of the issue between the parties and thus appealable. Upon review of the judgment, grounds of appeal, and submissions, the court concluded that another court might reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal, with the proceeds from the sale of the immovable property to remain in trust pending the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs to be costs in the appeal. Proceeds from the sale of the immovable property to remain in trust pending appeal.

Orders

  • The first applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.