Evernu Plastice Pty Limited v Manufacturing Development Board and Another (32874/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 252 (30 October 2007)

Evernu Plastice Pty Limited v Manufacturing Development Board and Another (32874/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 252 (30 October 2007)

The court found that the applicant is not a new business or project but a continuation of Nu-Plastic (Pty) Ltd under a new guise. The transfer of assets, continuation of production, use of the same premises, and customer base all indicate the business was purchased as a going concern. The SMEDP guidelines require that only new projects qualify for incentives, and the applicant does not meet this criterion. The Board's decision was rational, based on the totality of the facts, and logically connected to the evidential material. The applicant's arguments regarding foreign investor status and lack of definition for 'continuation of an existing business' were rejected as lacking merit.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 252
Parties
Applicant: Evernu Plastics (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Manufacturing Development Board; Respondent: The Minister of Trade and Industry
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Case Number
32874/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Manufacturing Development Act, Incentive Scheme Eligibility, Definition of Existing Business
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Review of Administrative Action Manufacturing Development Act Incentive Scheme Eligibility Definition of Existing Business

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

Parties

Evernu Plastics (Pty) Limited

Applicant

The Manufacturing Development Board

Respondent

The Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant qualifies as a new project or is a continuation of an existing business under the SMEDP guidelines.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of incentives by the first respondent was rational and justifiable.
  3. 3 Whether the requirement for equivalent investment in new machinery applies to the applicant as a foreign investor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is not a new business or project but a continuation of Nu-Plastic (Pty) Ltd under a new guise. The transfer of assets, continuation of production, use of the same premises, and customer base all indicate the business was purchased as a going concern. The SMEDP guidelines require that only new projects qualify for incentives, and the applicant does not meet this criterion. The Board's decision was rational, based on the totality of the facts, and logically connected to the evidential material. The applicant's arguments regarding foreign investor status and lack of definition for 'continuation of an existing business' were rejected as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.