Dasarath v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd and Another (2084/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 26; 2008 BIP 382 (D) (31 March 2008)

Dasarath v Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd and Another (2084/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 26; 2008 BIP 382 (D) (31 March 2008)

The court held that the review application was timeously brought because the period for review under Section 48 of the Companies Act only commences when the applicant becomes aware of the Registrar's decision. On the merits, the court found that the company name 'City Glass and Aluminium' was not likely to cause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Ishan Dasarath; Respondent: Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Registrar of Companies
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2008
Case Number
2084/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The Registrar's order directing a name change and the de-registration of the company are set aside. The company is restored to the register.
Judges
Swain
Legal Topics
Company Name Dispute, Review of Administrative Action, De Registration of Company, Restoration to Company Register
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Name Dispute Review of Administrative Action De Registration of Company Restoration to Company Register

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ishan Dasarath

Applicant

Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Limited

Respondent

The Registrar of Companies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application was timeously brought under Section 48 of the Companies Act.
  2. 2 Whether the order by the Registrar of Companies directing a name change was justified under Section 45(2) of the Companies Act.
  3. 3 Whether the de-registration of City Glass and Aluminium (Pty) Ltd was lawful under Section 73 of the Companies Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the review application was timeously brought because the period for review under Section 48 of the Companies Act only commences when the applicant becomes aware of the Registrar's decision. On the merits, the court found that the company name 'City Glass and Aluminium' was not likely to cause confusion or deception with the first respondent's registered mark 'Aluminium City', as the words 'City', 'Aluminium', and 'Glass' are ordinary and the overall impression would not mislead the average customer. The Registrar's order directing a name change was therefore unjustified. Furthermore, the de-registration of the company was set aside as the Registrar failed to comply...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Registrar's order directing a name change and the de-registration of the company are set aside. The company is restored to the register.

Orders

  • The order made by the second respondent on 22 February 2006, in terms of Section 45(2) of the Companies Act 1973, is set aside.
  • The de-registration of City Glass and Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. by the second respondent on or about 08 December 2006 is set aside.