Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 76; 2016 (2) SA 622 (WCC) (1 June 2015)

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 76; 2016 (2) SA 622 (WCC) (1 June 2015)

The court found that the respondent, a peregrinus, had instituted proceedings in South Africa and previously furnished security for costs. The applicant sought an increase in security due to the arbitration proceeding. The respondent was able to provide the additional security and would not be prevented from pursuing its claim. The court held that the practice of requiring security for costs from a peregrinus is rational, serves a legitimate purpose, and does not amount to unfair discrimination or violate the right to equality under the Constitution. The discretion to order security must be exercised based on the circumstances and fairness to both parties. The respondent's constitutional...

Citation
[2015] ZAWCHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Blastrite (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Genpaco Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2015
Case Number
4530/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs in Arbitration Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent ordered to furnish security for costs.
Judges
Schippers
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Arbitration Act, Peregrinus Litigant, Constitutional Right to Equality
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Arbitration Act Peregrinus Litigant Constitutional Right to Equality

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Genpaco Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs in Arbitration Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, a peregrinus, should be ordered to furnish additional security for costs in arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the common law practice requiring a peregrinus to provide security for costs is unconstitutional and amounts to unfair discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, a peregrinus, had instituted proceedings in South Africa and previously furnished security for costs. The applicant sought an increase in security due to the arbitration proceeding. The respondent was able to provide the additional security and would not be prevented from pursuing its claim. The court held that the practice of requiring security for costs from a peregrinus is rational, serves a legitimate purpose, and does not amount to unfair discrimination or violate the right to equality under the Constitution. The discretion to order security must be exercised based on the circumstances and fairness to both parties. The respondent's constitutional...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent ordered to furnish security for costs.

Orders

  • The respondent shall furnish security for the applicant’s costs in the sum of R250000.00 in respect of the arbitration proceedings pending before the arbitrator, Mr DR Mitchell SC.
  • The respondent shall furnish such security by no later than Friday 12 June 2015, failing which the applicant is granted leave to approach this court on the same papers (supplemented if necessary) for an order dismissing the respondent’s claims in the arbitration; alternatively, staying the arbitration proceedings...