Daly and Others v Hartog and Another (32975/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 674 (5 November 2021)

Daly and Others v Hartog and Another (32975/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 674 (5 November 2021)

The Court found that none of the grounds of appeal raised by the first respondent met the threshold required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no genuine bona fide dispute of fact that warranted referral to trial, and the evidence was capable of resolution on the papers. The allegations of negligence and non-compliance with the FIC Act by Standard Bank were not substantiated. The Court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 674
Parties
Applicant: Brigitte Daly; Applicant: Carin Ingrid Foulkes-Jones; Applicant: Patrick Frederick Daly; Respondent: Gavin Hartog; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa LTD
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2021
Case Number
32975/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
MMP Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Threshold, Genuine Dispute of Fact, Fic Act Compliance, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Threshold Genuine Dispute of Fact Fic Act Compliance Costs Award

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

Parties

Brigitte Daly

Applicant

Carin Ingrid Foulkes-Jones

Applicant

Patrick Frederick Daly

Applicant

Gavin Hartog

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there exists a genuine bona fide dispute of fact warranting referral to trial.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent (Standard Bank) acted negligently and wrongfully under the FIC Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that none of the grounds of appeal raised by the first respondent met the threshold required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no genuine bona fide dispute of fact that warranted referral to trial, and the evidence was capable of resolution on the papers. The allegations of negligence and non-compliance with the FIC Act by Standard Bank were not substantiated. The Court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs inclusive of the costs of the employment of senior counsel.