Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate of Waterford Golf and River Estate SS139/2006 (3979/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 101 (9 April 2024)

Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate of Waterford Golf and River Estate SS139/2006 (3979/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 101 (9 April 2024)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold set by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, as there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the second stay application. The arguments advanced by Goldex and Mr Hulme were considered and found to be substantially the same as those previously addressed in the judgment on the merits. The court further held that no compelling reason existed to justify granting leave to appeal, as the merits of the proposed appeal remained decisive and did not warrant reconsideration. The conduct of Mr Hulme in persisting with litigation after the...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 101
Parties
Applicant: Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Body Corporate of Waterford Golf and River Estate SS139/2006
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2024
Case Number
3979/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Second Stay Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicant and Mr Hulme, jointly and severally.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs De Bonis Propriis Abuse of Process

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Body Corporate of Waterford Golf and River Estate SS139/2006

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Second Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of the second stay application.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether costs de bonis propriis should be awarded against Mr Hulme in his personal capacity for the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold set by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, as there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the second stay application. The arguments advanced by Goldex and Mr Hulme were considered and found to be substantially the same as those previously addressed in the judgment on the merits. The court further held that no compelling reason existed to justify granting leave to appeal, as the merits of the proposed appeal remained decisive and did not warrant reconsideration. The conduct of Mr Hulme in persisting with litigation after the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicant and Mr Hulme, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant and Mr RRH (Rob) Hulme (in his personal capacity) are ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, payment by the one the other to be absolved, on a scale as between attorney and client.