Biccard N.O and Others v Ndwandwe and Others (2023-033422) [2024] ZAGPPHC 973 (30 September 2024)

Biccard N.O and Others v Ndwandwe and Others (2023-033422) [2024] ZAGPPHC 973 (30 September 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were adequately addressed in the original judgment, and no new facts or legal arguments were presented that would justify reconsideration by another court. The allegation of judicial bias was unsupported by any evidence beyond the applicants' dissatisfaction with the outcome. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 973
Parties
Applicant: Bianca Tiana Biccard N.O.; Applicant: Atholl David Victor Liebman N.O.; Applicant: Jaqueline June Liebman Gentile N.O.; Respondent: Johannes Oupa Ndwandwe; Respondent: Themba Hendry Mkhbela; Respondent: Bradley Brett Liebman N.O.; Respondent: Andrea Liebman N.O.; Respondent: Jonathan Hugh Stephens; Respondent: Angelene Poole N.O.; Respondent: Janetta Evelyn Carr N.O.; Respondent: Pumezo David N.O.; Respondent: Murray James Barnetson N.O.; Respondent: Kanabo Gugulethu Skhosana N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Christiana Biccard
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Case Number
2023-033422
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Judicial Bias, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Judicial Bias Costs Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bianca Tiana Biccard N.O.

Applicant

Atholl David Victor Liebman N.O.

Applicant

Jaqueline June Liebman Gentile N.O.

Applicant

Johannes Oupa Ndwandwe

Respondent

Themba Hendry Mkhbela

Respondent

Bradley Brett Liebman N.O.

Respondent

Andrea Liebman N.O.

Respondent

Jonathan Hugh Stephens

Respondent

Angelene Poole N.O.

Respondent

Janetta Evelyn Carr N.O.

Respondent

Pumezo David N.O.

Respondent

Murray James Barnetson N.O.

Respondent

Kanabo Gugulethu Skhosana N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Christiana Biccard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal establish a reasonable prospect of success.
  3. 3 Whether allegations of judicial bias are substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were adequately addressed in the original judgment, and no new facts or legal arguments were presented that would justify reconsideration by another court. The allegation of judicial bias was unsupported by any evidence beyond the applicants' dissatisfaction with the outcome. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs of counsel on scale B.