Du Preez and Another v Hantle Infra Planning (PTY) Ltd and Others (1214/2021) [2022] ZAECQBHC 10 (24 May 2022)

Du Preez and Another v Hantle Infra Planning (PTY) Ltd and Others (1214/2021) [2022] ZAECQBHC 10 (24 May 2022)

The court found that there are no compelling reasons or reasonable prospects of success to justify granting leave to appeal. The alleged conflict between judgments in Leech and Jeeva is not relevant to the present matter, as the issue of access to information by prospective witnesses prior to interrogation does not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAECQBHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Carel Frederick Benjamin Du Preez; Applicant: I’ Andre Swanepoel; Respondent: Hantle Infra Planning (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Andre van Heerden N O; Respondent: Sune Smith N O; Respondent: Rene Bekker N O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2022
Case Number
1214/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Part a Relief
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Goosen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Access to Court Documents, Confidentiality in Liquidation Inquiries, Locus Standi, Superior Courts Act, Companies Act Section 417
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Access to Court Documents Confidentiality in Liquidation Inquiries Locus Standi Superior Courts Act Companies Act Section 417

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

Carel Frederick Benjamin Du Preez

Applicant

I’ Andre Swanepoel

Applicant

Hantle Infra Planning (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Andre van Heerden N O

Respondent

Sune Smith N O

Respondent

Rene Bekker N O

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Part a Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are compelling reasons or reasonable prospects of success to grant leave to appeal against the dismissal of the application for relief in Part A.
  2. 2 Whether conflicting judgments on access to information in liquidation inquiries justify leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to challenge the lawfulness of the inquiry and to access founding court papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are no compelling reasons or reasonable prospects of success to justify granting leave to appeal. The alleged conflict between judgments in Leech and Jeeva is not relevant to the present matter, as the issue of access to information by prospective witnesses prior to interrogation does not arise here. The applicants' challenge to the lawfulness of the order was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The judgment did not make an adverse finding on the applicants' locus standi, and their standing was assumed for the purposes of the application. The court considered the views of the liquidators as part of a balancing exercise and found no basis for interference....

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.