Finneran and Others v Finneran and Others (2087/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 380 (22 April 2010)

Finneran and Others v Finneran and Others (2087/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 380 (22 April 2010)

The court found that, after considering the arguments and authorities presented by both parties, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the merits. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused. The court also ordered that costs be awarded against the applicant for leave to appeal.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 380
Parties
Applicant: Anton Garth Finneran; Applicant: Gerda Rose Musikant (born Finneran); Applicant: Lionel Finneran; Applicant: Emma Jane Finneran; Applicant: Daniel Finneran; Applicant: Brynn Solomon Finneran; Respondent: Patricia Jennifer Finneran (formerly Jones); Respondent: Morris Stern; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2010
Case Number
2087/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
A Dicker
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anton Garth Finneran

Applicant

Gerda Rose Musikant (born Finneran)

Applicant

Lionel Finneran

Applicant

Emma Jane Finneran

Applicant

Daniel Finneran

Applicant

Brynn Solomon Finneran

Applicant

Patricia Jennifer Finneran (formerly Jones)

Respondent

Morris Stern

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted or refused.
  3. 3 Whether the costs should be awarded against the applicant for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after considering the arguments and authorities presented by both parties, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the merits. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused. The court also ordered that costs be awarded against the applicant for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant for leave to appeal is ordered to pay the costs.