Gateway Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Colleen Millar Trading as Rallim House and Others (15061/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 115 (4 September 2019)

Gateway Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Colleen Millar Trading as Rallim House and Others (15061/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 115 (4 September 2019)

The court refused the applicants' oral application for leave to amend the notice of motion, finding that the amendment was sought at a late stage without any reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not serve a notice of amendment as required by Rule 28(1). The delay and lack of urgency prejudiced the respondents, and the prejudice could not be cured by a costs order or postponement. Furthermore, the restraint period had lapsed, rendering the application moot. The court held that it would be inequitable to grant interdictory relief for the remaining months of the restraint period, given the applicants' lack of diligence and...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 115
Parties
Applicant: Gateway Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gateway International Education Fund (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Colleen Millar trading as Rallim House; Respondent: Rallim House (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Garden Cities Non-Profit Company (RF)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2019
Case Number
15061/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and Final Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Le Grange
Legal Topics
Amendment of Notice of Motion, Restraint of Trade, Non Disclosure Agreement, Interdictory Relief, Contractual Interpretation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Notice of Motion Restraint of Trade Non Disclosure Agreement Interdictory Relief Contractual Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gateway Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gateway International Education Fund (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Colleen Millar trading as Rallim House

Respondent

Rallim House (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Garden Cities Non-Profit Company (RF)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend the notice of motion to change the operative date of the restraint period.
  2. 2 Whether the delay and lack of explanation for the amendment prejudiced the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the restraint period had lapsed, rendering the application moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the applicants' oral application for leave to amend the notice of motion, finding that the amendment was sought at a late stage without any reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not serve a notice of amendment as required by Rule 28(1). The delay and lack of urgency prejudiced the respondents, and the prejudice could not be cured by a costs order or postponement. Furthermore, the restraint period had lapsed, rendering the application moot. The court held that it would be inequitable to grant interdictory relief for the remaining months of the restraint period, given the applicants' lack of diligence and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The oral application by counsel for the applicants for leave to amend the notice of motion is refused.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.