Bidoli v Bidoli and Another (2982/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 160 (14 June 2010)

Bidoli v Bidoli and Another (2982/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 160 (14 June 2010)

The court found that, although it was satisfied with its original decision, it could not exclude the possibility that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the orders in paragraph 40(i) and (ii). The matter was deemed to be of importance not only to the parties but also to others engaged in arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the court was persuaded that leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 160
Parties
Applicant: Guido Bruni Bidoli; Respondent: Barbara Ueselotte Bidoli; Respondent: Romolo Bidoli
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2010
Case Number
2982/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding the orders in paragraph 40(i) and (ii) of the judgment of 15 March 2010.
Judges
Fourie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Arbitration Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Arbitration 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guido Bruni Bidoli

Applicant

Barbara Ueselotte Bidoli

Respondent

Romolo Bidoli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the orders in paragraph 40(i) and (ii) of the previous judgment should be subject to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although it was satisfied with its original decision, it could not exclude the possibility that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the orders in paragraph 40(i) and (ii). The matter was deemed to be of importance not only to the parties but also to others engaged in arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the court was persuaded that leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding the orders in paragraph 40(i) and (ii) of the judgment of 15 March 2010.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment of 15 March 2010 insofar as it relates to the orders set out in paragraph 40(i) and (ii).
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal are to be costs in the appeal.