Crockery Gladstone Farm v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd (592/18) [2019] ZASCA 61 (20 May 2019)

Crockery Gladstone Farm v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd (592/18) [2019] ZASCA 61 (20 May 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order of the Full Court granting rescission of the default judgment was not appealable. The order was interlocutory, did not finally determine the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of any portion of the appellant's claim. The respondent was merely afforded an opportunity to answer the claim, and the appellant's claim remained intact. The court found that the Full Court exercised its discretion properly in granting rescission and awarding costs, given the appellant's attorneys' failure to disclose ongoing settlement negotiations and to provide proper instructions. There was no misdirection in the exercise of discretion, and the costs order...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 61
Parties
Appellant: Crockery Gladstone Farm; Respondent: Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Case Number
592/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Order Granting Rescission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tshiqi, Mbha, Mathopo, Davis, Weiner
Legal Topics
Appealability of Orders, Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Appealability of Orders Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Costs Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crockery Gladstone Farm

Appellant

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Order Granting Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the order of the Full Court granting rescission of judgment appealable?
  2. 2 Did the Full Court exercise its discretion correctly in granting rescission and awarding costs?
  3. 3 Was the default judgment erroneously granted due to non-disclosure of settlement negotiations?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order of the Full Court granting rescission of the default judgment was not appealable. The order was interlocutory, did not finally determine the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of any portion of the appellant's claim. The respondent was merely afforded an opportunity to answer the claim, and the appellant's claim remained intact. The court found that the Full Court exercised its discretion properly in granting rescission and awarding costs, given the appellant's attorneys' failure to disclose ongoing settlement negotiations and to provide proper instructions. There was no misdirection in the exercise of discretion, and the costs order...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.