Burmeister and Another v Spitskop Village Properties and Others (Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Intervening) (76408/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 72 (22 January 2016)

Burmeister and Another v Spitskop Village Properties and Others (Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service Intervening) (76408/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 72 (22 January 2016)

The court found that the applicants' grounds for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already addressed in the main judgment. The obstacles identified, including the opposition of the main creditor (SARS), the disappearance of the substratum of the first respondent, and the lack of sufficient detail in the business rescue plan, were insurmountable. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Friederich Burmeister; Applicant: Leseding Development Limited; Respondent: Spitskop Village Properties Ltd; Respondent: Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Case Number
76408/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Business Rescue Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
T.M. Makgoka
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Business Rescue Proceedings, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Business Rescue Proceedings Reasonable Prospects of Success Superior Courts Act

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Friederich Burmeister

Applicant

Leseding Development Limited

Applicant

Spitskop Village Properties Ltd

Respondent

Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.

Respondent

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Business Rescue Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the business rescue application.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal raise new or substantial issues not previously considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' grounds for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already addressed in the main judgment. The obstacles identified, including the opposition of the main creditor (SARS), the disappearance of the substratum of the first respondent, and the lack of sufficient detail in the business rescue plan, were insurmountable. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed, to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.