Baloyi v Malherbe and Another (JR 2661/2007) [2015] ZALCJHB 10; [2015] 2 All SA 20 (GJ) (21 January 2015)

Baloyi v Malherbe and Another (JR 2661/2007) [2015] ZALCJHB 10; [2015] 2 All SA 20 (GJ) (21 January 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraudulent or reckless conduct by the respondents to justify piercing the corporate veil. The deregistration and subsequent re-registration of the second respondent were not proven to be motivated by an intent to frustrate enforcement of the arbitration award or to circumvent litigation. The mere failure to comply with the arbitration award, which had not been made an order of court or certified, did not constitute grounds for the exceptional remedy of piercing the corporate veil. The facts of the case did not reveal an abuse of corporate personality or improper conduct warranting personal liability of the first...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 10
Parties
Applicant: Charles Baloyi; Respondent: JD Malherbe; Respondent: United Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2015
Case Number
JR 2661/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Piercing Corporate Veil, Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Condonation Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Piercing Corporate Veil Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Award Enforcement Condonation Application

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Baloyi

Applicant

JD Malherbe

Respondent

United Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the corporate veil of the second respondent should be pierced to hold the first respondent personally liable for the indebtedness of the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the delay and failure to comply with the arbitration award constitutes an abuse of the corporate personality.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justify the exceptional remedy of piercing the corporate veil.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraudulent or reckless conduct by the respondents to justify piercing the corporate veil. The deregistration and subsequent re-registration of the second respondent were not proven to be motivated by an intent to frustrate enforcement of the arbitration award or to circumvent litigation. The mere failure to comply with the arbitration award, which had not been made an order of court or certified, did not constitute grounds for the exceptional remedy of piercing the corporate veil. The facts of the case did not reveal an abuse of corporate personality or improper conduct warranting personal liability of the first...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.