De Klerk v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (12910/2010) [2018] ZAGPPHC 574 (15 June 2018)

De Klerk v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (12910/2010) [2018] ZAGPPHC 574 (15 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default, particularly regarding his absence from court and the delay of over six years in bringing the rescission application. The applicant's general explanations lacked specificity and credibility, especially given his professional experience as an attorney. On the merits, the applicant's version was inconsistent with the objective evidence presented by the respondent, including failures to submit audit reports, pay fines, cooperate with inspections, and account for trust funds. The court held that the applicant did not satisfy either of the essential requirements for rescission under...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 574
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Randall De Klerk; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Case Number
12910/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Striking Applicant From Roll of Attorneys
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Strijdom, N V Khumalo
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Striking Off Attorney, Default Judgment, Disciplinary Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Striking Off Attorney Default Judgment Disciplinary Proceedings

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

Parties

Stephen Randall De Klerk

Applicant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Striking Applicant From Roll of Attorneys

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause under the common law for rescission of the default judgment striking his name from the roll of attorneys.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence with prospects of success on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default, particularly regarding his absence from court and the delay of over six years in bringing the rescission application. The applicant's general explanations lacked specificity and credibility, especially given his professional experience as an attorney. On the merits, the applicant's version was inconsistent with the objective evidence presented by the respondent, including failures to submit audit reports, pay fines, cooperate with inspections, and account for trust funds. The court held that the applicant did not satisfy either of the essential requirements for rescission under...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the default judgment is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.