Harris and Others v Rees and Others (09/32226) [2010] ZAGPJHC 51; [2010] 4 All SA 603 (GSJ) ; 2011 (2) SA 294 (GSJ) (25 June 2010)

Harris and Others v Rees and Others (09/32226) [2010] ZAGPJHC 51; [2010] 4 All SA 603 (GSJ) ; 2011 (2) SA 294 (GSJ) (25 June 2010)

The court held that the applicants, as trustees, had locus standi to bring the application despite the absence of letters of authority from the Master at the time of launching proceedings. The court found that the first respondent had deliberately placed himself outside the jurisdiction, was intimately involved in a fraudulent investment scheme, and had used the trusts and companies as alter egos to conceal and launder investor funds. The attachment order was confirmed as the applicants established a prima facie case for relief, and the court exercised its discretion to allow the filing of a further affidavit and the joinder of Jennifer Anne Westoby as trustee. The respondent's arguments...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Vause Harris; Applicant: Christopher Vause Harris N.O.; Applicant: Anne Elizabeth Ross N.O.; Respondent: Dean Gillian Rees; Respondent: Dean Gillian Rees N.O.; Respondent: Dominique Rees N.O.; Respondent: Suscito Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Centaur Properties (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Abated Investments (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Jennifer Anne Westoby N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Case Number
09/32226
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Attachment Order and Joinder
Outcome
Application for discharge of attachment order dismissed; attachment order confirmed; joinder of additional trustee granted; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
J.P. Horn
Legal Topics
Attachment to Found Jurisdiction, Locus Standi of Trustees, Piercing Corporate Veil, Trust Property Control Act, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attachment to Found Jurisdiction Locus Standi of Trustees Piercing Corporate Veil Trust Property Control Act Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Vause Harris

Applicant

Christopher Vause Harris N.O.

Applicant

Anne Elizabeth Ross N.O.

Applicant

Dean Gillian Rees

Respondent

Dean Gillian Rees N.O.

Respondent

Dominique Rees N.O.

Respondent

Suscito Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Centaur Properties (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Abated Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Jennifer Anne Westoby N.O.

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Attachment Order and Joinder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application in the absence of letters of authority from the Master.
  2. 2 Whether the attachment order granted by Claassen J should be discharged.
  3. 3 Whether the trusts and companies cited are alter egos of the first respondent and subject to attachment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants, as trustees, had locus standi to bring the application despite the absence of letters of authority from the Master at the time of launching proceedings. The court found that the first respondent had deliberately placed himself outside the jurisdiction, was intimately involved in a fraudulent investment scheme, and had used the trusts and companies as alter egos to conceal and launder investor funds. The attachment order was confirmed as the applicants established a prima facie case for relief, and the court exercised its discretion to allow the filing of a further affidavit and the joinder of Jennifer Anne Westoby as trustee. The respondent's arguments...

Court Disposition

Application for discharge of attachment order dismissed; attachment order confirmed; joinder of additional trustee granted; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The application by the first respondent for discharge of the order granted by Claassen J on 11 August 2009 is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of Claassen J is confirmed in respect of paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.14, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25.