Bloomberg Orthopaedics & Neurosciences v Vermaal and Another (A457/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 51 (23 April 2009)

Bloomberg Orthopaedics & Neurosciences v Vermaal and Another (A457/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 51 (23 April 2009)

The court found that the restraint period had expired and there was no longer any subsisting issue or lis between the parties. Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act empowers the court to dismiss an appeal where the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect or result, and this was the case here. The appellant's argument that exceptional circumstances existed due to the respondent's alleged dilatory conduct was rejected, as the delays were not solely attributable to the respondent and the application under Rule 35(12) was substantially successful. The court held that costs considerations do not constitute exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section 21A. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 51
Parties
Appellant: Bloomberg Orthopaedics & Neurosciences; Respondent: Marize Vermaak; Respondent: Fluorovizion (Pty) Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Case Number
A457/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Interim Interdict Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
S.P.B. Hancke, M.H. Rampai, C.J. Musi
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Interim Interdict, Practical Effect of Judgment, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Interim Interdict Practical Effect of Judgment Costs Award

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloomberg Orthopaedics & Neurosciences

Appellant

Marize Vermaak

Respondent

Fluorovizion (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Interim Interdict Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has any practical effect or result given the expiry of the restraint period.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify hearing the appeal despite its academic nature.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restraint period had expired and there was no longer any subsisting issue or lis between the parties. Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act empowers the court to dismiss an appeal where the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect or result, and this was the case here. The appellant's argument that exceptional circumstances existed due to the respondent's alleged dilatory conduct was rejected, as the delays were not solely attributable to the respondent and the application under Rule 35(12) was substantially successful. The court held that costs considerations do not constitute exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section 21A. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.