Chunnett v Roytblat (51541/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 800 (6 September 2016)

Chunnett v Roytblat (51541/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 800 (6 September 2016)

The court found that the respondent is a peregrinus, has no immovable property in South Africa, and frequently travels abroad, which increases the risk of non-payment of costs. The respondent's claims of sufficient assets were not substantiated with evidence, and her business activities do not negate the need for security. The amount claimed by the applicants is fair and reasonable. The court held that the respondent is liable to provide security for costs in the amount of R200,000.00 per action, or alternatively, to submit guarantees from a registered financial institution. The prosecution of her actions is stayed pending compliance, and she is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 800
Parties
Applicant: Gordon Chunnett; Respondent: Lyudmila Roytblat
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2016
Case Number
51541/2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; respondent ordered to pay security and costs.
Judges
S P Mothle
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus Litigation, Rule 47 Uniform Rules, Attachment of Property
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Litigation Rule 47 Uniform Rules Attachment of Property

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Chunnett

Applicant

Lyudmila Roytblat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as a peregrinus, should be ordered to provide security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the amount claimed as security for costs is fair and reasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's financial position and assets are sufficient to avoid the need for security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent is a peregrinus, has no immovable property in South Africa, and frequently travels abroad, which increases the risk of non-payment of costs. The respondent's claims of sufficient assets were not substantiated with evidence, and her business activities do not negate the need for security. The amount claimed by the applicants is fair and reasonable. The court held that the respondent is liable to provide security for costs in the amount of R200,000.00 per action, or alternatively, to submit guarantees from a registered financial institution. The prosecution of her actions is stayed pending compliance, and she is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; respondent ordered to pay security and costs.

Orders

  • The application succeeds.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay an amount of R200,000.00 as security for costs in each action, or alternatively submit guarantees in a total amount of R400,000.00 from a registered financial institution in South Africa.