Corplo 358 Close Corporation v Charters (844/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 27 (1 July 2011)

Corplo 358 Close Corporation v Charters (844/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 27 (1 July 2011)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for provisional sequestration. The authority of Mr Wicks to institute proceedings was accepted, as the respondent's challenge was tactical and unsupported by evidence. The respondent's denial of personal liability was unconvincing, given the pattern of cashing multiple dishonoured cheques and the lack of credible explanation for the anticipated inflows of funds. The respondent failed to rebut the inference of insolvency, and the applicant was not required to provide a detailed list of creditors or assets. The prospect that investigation under sequestration may reveal assets was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of...

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Corplo 358 Close Corporation; Respondent: Michael Henry Charters
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2011
Case Number
844/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration Order
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent.
Judges
J G Grogan
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Personal Liability of Directors, Proof of Authority, Advantage to Creditors
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Provisional Sequestration Personal Liability of Directors Proof of Authority Advantage to Creditors

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corplo 358 Close Corporation

Applicant

Michael Henry Charters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deponent to the founding affidavit had authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is personally liable for the dishonoured cheques and thus indebted to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is insolvent or has committed an act of insolvency as required for provisional sequestration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for provisional sequestration. The authority of Mr Wicks to institute proceedings was accepted, as the respondent's challenge was tactical and unsupported by evidence. The respondent's denial of personal liability was unconvincing, given the pattern of cashing multiple dishonoured cheques and the lack of credible explanation for the anticipated inflows of funds. The respondent failed to rebut the inference of insolvency, and the applicant was not required to provide a detailed list of creditors or assets. The prospect that investigation under sequestration may reveal assets was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent, Michael Henry Charters, is placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High Court.
  • The respondent may show cause in this Court on 4 August 2011, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why a final order of sequestration should not be granted.