Burger & Wallace Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd (406/10) [2011] ZASCA 136 (23 September 2011)

Burger & Wallace Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd (406/10) [2011] ZASCA 136 (23 September 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence, particularly that of Mr Carse, supported the existence of a binding joint venture agreement between the parties. The agreement did not require bank finance or equal shareholding in Defacto, the corporate vehicle. The plaintiff repudiated the agreement by colluding with third parties and excluding the defendant from the development of the Ogden erven, as evidenced by its acquisition and transfer of shares and its conduct in relation to Defacto and the development. The defendant suffered loss in respect of its share of profits and construction opportunities. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court a quo was upheld.

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 136
Parties
Appellant: Burger & Wallace Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2011
Case Number
406/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (saldanha J)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Cloete, Malan, Meer, Plasket, Petse
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Agreement, Breach of Contract, Damages for Repliciation, Oral Contracts, Shareholder Rights
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Joint Venture Agreement Breach of Contract Damages for Repliciation Oral Contracts Shareholder Rights

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

Parties

Burger & Wallace Construction (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (saldanha J)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding joint venture agreement was concluded between the parties on the terms alleged.
  2. 2 Whether the joint venture agreement was breached or repudiated by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant suffered loss as a result of the alleged breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence, particularly that of Mr Carse, supported the existence of a binding joint venture agreement between the parties. The agreement did not require bank finance or equal shareholding in Defacto, the corporate vehicle. The plaintiff repudiated the agreement by colluding with third parties and excluding the defendant from the development of the Ogden erven, as evidenced by its acquisition and transfer of shares and its conduct in relation to Defacto and the development. The defendant suffered loss in respect of its share of profits and construction opportunities. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court a quo was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.