Fountainhead Property Trust and Another v Gospel Direct (Pty) Lt t/a Gospel Direct and Another (70335/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 571 (11 August 2014)

Fountainhead Property Trust and Another v Gospel Direct (Pty) Lt t/a Gospel Direct and Another (70335/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 571 (11 August 2014)

Condonation for the late filing of applications for leave to appeal was granted to both parties as neither opposed the other's application and the costs were reserved for the Full Bench. Leave to appeal was granted to the defendants regarding the judgment on the first claim for rent, as there may have been a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 571
Parties
Plaintiff: Fountainhead Property Trust; Plaintiff: Attfund Limited; Defendant: Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd t/a Gospel Direct; Defendant: Lukas Hermanus Carelsen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
70335/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Claims
Outcome
Condonation for late filing of applications for leave to appeal granted to both parties. Leave to appeal granted to defendants on the first claim and to plaintiffs on the second and third claims. Costs reserved for determination by the Full Bench.
Judges
P.Z. Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Lease Dispute, Future Rental Loss, Restoration Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Condonation Lease Dispute Future Rental Loss Restoration Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fountainhead Property Trust

Plaintiff

Attfund Limited

Plaintiff

Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd t/a Gospel Direct

Defendant

Lukas Hermanus Carelsen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Claims

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of applications for leave to appeal by both parties.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the defendants regarding the judgment on the first claim for rent.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the plaintiffs regarding the dismissal of the second and third claims for restoration costs and future rental loss.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for the late filing of applications for leave to appeal was granted to both parties as neither opposed the other's application and the costs were reserved for the Full Bench. Leave to appeal was granted to the defendants regarding the judgment on the first claim for rent, as there may have been a misunderstanding between the court and the parties. Leave to appeal was also granted to the plaintiffs regarding the dismissal of the second and third claims for restoration costs and future rental loss, as there is a possibility another court may reach a different decision. The costs of the applications for leave to appeal were reserved for determination by the Full Bench.

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing of applications for leave to appeal granted to both parties. Leave to appeal granted to defendants on the first claim and to plaintiffs on the second and third claims. Costs reserved for determination by the Full Bench.

Orders

  • The application for condonation by the plaintiffs is granted and the application for condonation by the defendants is granted; costs reserved for determination by the Full Bench.
  • Leave to appeal to the Full Bench against the dismissal of the second and third claims against the defendants is granted to the plaintiffs.