Bickell v Brown NO and Other (EL 579/2010, ECD 1179/2010) [2012] ZAECELLC 7 (19 April 2012)

Bickell v Brown NO and Other (EL 579/2010, ECD 1179/2010) [2012] ZAECELLC 7 (19 April 2012)

The court found that the respondents were fully aware of the terms of the court order, which required demolition of the existing venue and construction of a new soundproofed venue, with certification from the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs before any events could be hosted. The respondents hosted events in breach of the order, relying on advice and letters that did not constitute formal certification as required. The court held that the respondents' belief that they could proceed was grossly unreasonable and not bona fide, as the language of both the rezoning approval and the court order was clear. The respondents failed to provide proper evidence of advice...

Citation
[2012] ZAECELLC 7
Parties
Applicant: Alexa Bickell; Respondent: Simon Amos Brown NO; Respondent: Sammy Amos Brown NO; Respondent: HKM Administrators CC NO
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2012
Case Number
EL 579/2010, ECD 1179/2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
First and Second Respondents, as trustees of the Amos Brown Holding Trust IT No. 268/95, are found to be in contempt of the court order granted by Smith J on 25 August 2010.
Judges
G Goosen
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Environmental Authorisation, Noise Nuisance, Interdict, Attorney Client Costs
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Contempt of Court Environmental Authorisation Noise Nuisance Interdict Attorney Client Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexa Bickell

Applicant

Simon Amos Brown NO

Respondent

Sammy Amos Brown NO

Respondent

HKM Administrators CC NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents wilfully and mala fide breached the terms of the court order granted by Smith J on 25 August 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' reliance on advice regarding rezoning and environmental compliance constitutes a bona fide defence to contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the conditions stipulated in the environmental authorisation and incorporated in the court order were met prior to hosting events.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were fully aware of the terms of the court order, which required demolition of the existing venue and construction of a new soundproofed venue, with certification from the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs before any events could be hosted. The respondents hosted events in breach of the order, relying on advice and letters that did not constitute formal certification as required. The court held that the respondents' belief that they could proceed was grossly unreasonable and not bona fide, as the language of both the rezoning approval and the court order was clear. The respondents failed to provide proper evidence of advice...

Court Disposition

First and Second Respondents, as trustees of the Amos Brown Holding Trust IT No. 268/95, are found to be in contempt of the court order granted by Smith J on 25 August 2010.

Orders

  • First and Second Respondents, as trustees, are directed to pay a fine of R20,000.00 jointly and severally within 10 days, payable at the office of the Registrar of this Court.
  • First and Second Respondents are each sentenced to 6 months imprisonment in the event that the fine is not paid timeously or at all.