Engelbrecht NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Pretoria (55163/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 5 (18 January 2017)

Engelbrecht NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Pretoria (55163/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 5 (18 January 2017)

The court found that the Master had incorrectly applied the 3% tariff under Item 2 of Tariff B to the applicants' remuneration, as the assets sold comprised both movable and immovable property, as well as other rights and interests. The directive was set aside. However, the court declined to order that the applicants' fees be taxed at 10% under Item 1 of Tariff B, holding that the sale assets fell into distinct categories under the tariff and that it was necessary for the Master to exercise discretion in determining reasonable remuneration. The matter was referred back to the Master for proper determination in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.; Applicant: Deon Marius Botha N.O.; Applicant: Allan David Pellow N.O.; Applicant: Barend Petersen N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Case Number
55163/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside Directive Under Section 407(4)(a) of the Companies Act
Outcome
Directive set aside; matter referred back to the Master for determination of reasonable remuneration; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Liquidator Remuneration, Companies Act 1973, Insolvency Act Tariff, Review of Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Liquidator Remuneration Companies Act 1973 Insolvency Act Tariff Review of Administrative Action

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.

Applicant

Deon Marius Botha N.O.

Applicant

Allan David Pellow N.O.

Applicant

Barend Petersen N.O.

Applicant

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside Directive Under Section 407(4)(a) of the Companies Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master applied the correct tariff for the applicants' remuneration as liquidators.
  2. 2 Whether the directive taxing the liquidators' fee at 3% should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to have their fees taxed at 10% under Item 1 of Tariff B.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Master had incorrectly applied the 3% tariff under Item 2 of Tariff B to the applicants' remuneration, as the assets sold comprised both movable and immovable property, as well as other rights and interests. The directive was set aside. However, the court declined to order that the applicants' fees be taxed at 10% under Item 1 of Tariff B, holding that the sale assets fell into distinct categories under the tariff and that it was necessary for the Master to exercise discretion in determining reasonable remuneration. The matter was referred back to the Master for proper determination in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Court Disposition

Directive set aside; matter referred back to the Master for determination of reasonable remuneration; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The directive of the respondent dated 4 March 2016 taxing the liquidators' fee at 3% is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the respondent to determine reasonable remuneration in terms of the applicable legislation for the work done by the applicants as liquidators.