Danielson v Human and Another (19118/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 92; 2017 (1) SA 141 (WCC) (1 August 2016)

Danielson v Human and Another (19118/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 92; 2017 (1) SA 141 (WCC) (1 August 2016)

The court held that the contracts underlying the foreign judgment did not involve transactions in raw materials or substances as contemplated by section 1(3) of the Protection of Businesses Act 99 of 1978. Therefore, ministerial permission was not required for enforcement. The court further found, based on expert evidence and US authorities, that the treble damages awarded under the RICO statute are compensatory and not strictly punitive. The judgment did not contain a punitive element that would render its enforcement contrary to South African public policy. Consequently, the foreign judgment met all jurisdictional requirements and was recognised and enforced.

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Aaron Keven Danielson; Respondent: Albertus Johannes Human; Respondent: Jan Petrus Human
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2016
Case Number
19118/2015
Procedural Posture
Recognition and Enforcement Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The foreign judgment is recognised and enforced.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Protection of Businesses Act, Public Policy Exception, Compensatory Vs Punitive Damages
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Protection of Businesses Act Public Policy Exception Compensatory Vs Punitive Damages

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Keven Danielson

Applicant

Albertus Johannes Human

Respondent

Jan Petrus Human

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recognition and Enforcement Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Protection of Businesses Act 99 of 1978 applies to the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.
  2. 2 Whether ministerial permission is required for enforcement under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment contains a punitive element contrary to South African public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contracts underlying the foreign judgment did not involve transactions in raw materials or substances as contemplated by section 1(3) of the Protection of Businesses Act 99 of 1978. Therefore, ministerial permission was not required for enforcement. The court further found, based on expert evidence and US authorities, that the treble damages awarded under the RICO statute are compensatory and not strictly punitive. The judgment did not contain a punitive element that would render its enforcement contrary to South African public policy. Consequently, the foreign judgment met all jurisdictional requirements and was recognised and enforced.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The foreign judgment is recognised and enforced.

Orders

  • The judgment of the United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, dated 2 May 2014, is recognised and enforced.
  • The respondents are directed to pay the applicant, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved: (1) USD 2,578,786.51; (2) USD 492.14; (3) Interest on each amount at 15.5% per annum from 2 May 2014 until 1 August 2014; from 2 August 2014 until 29 February 2016 at 9% per annum; and thereafter at...