Hawkwind CC v Goddard (2589/2010) [2010] ZAECPEHC 59 (16 September 2010)

Hawkwind CC v Goddard (2589/2010) [2010] ZAECPEHC 59 (16 September 2010)

The court found that the omission of certain brokerages from the restraint order was due to a reasonable mistake by the applicant's attorney, Schoeman, and not a limitation instructed by the applicant. The evidence, including draft affidavits and emails, demonstrated that the applicant intended to include a broader list of entities. This mistake amounted to justus error, which vitiated the true consent to the compromise agreement underlying the consent order. Accordingly, the court held that the consent order should be set aside. However, the court did not grant the full relief sought by the applicant, as the respondent must be afforded due process in the adjudication of the broader...

Citation
[2010] ZAECPEHC 59
Parties
Applicant: Hawkwind CC; Respondent: Salomie Goddard
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2010
Case Number
2589/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Previous Consent Order and for Interim Interdict
Outcome
The consent order dated 17 August 2010 is set aside. Interim relief is granted restraining the respondent pending finalization of the matter. Costs are to stand over.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Rescission of Consent Order, Justus Error, Interim Interdict, Compromise Agreement
Civil Procedure Rescission of Consent Order Justus Error Interim Interdict Compromise Agreement

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawkwind CC

Applicant

Salomie Goddard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Previous Consent Order and for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission of certain brokerages from the restraint order was a reasonable mistake amounting to justus error.
  2. 2 Whether such mistake vitiated the agreement of compromise and justified setting aside the consent order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief pending final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission of certain brokerages from the restraint order was due to a reasonable mistake by the applicant's attorney, Schoeman, and not a limitation instructed by the applicant. The evidence, including draft affidavits and emails, demonstrated that the applicant intended to include a broader list of entities. This mistake amounted to justus error, which vitiated the true consent to the compromise agreement underlying the consent order. Accordingly, the court held that the consent order should be set aside. However, the court did not grant the full relief sought by the applicant, as the respondent must be afforded due process in the adjudication of the broader...

Court Disposition

The consent order dated 17 August 2010 is set aside. Interim relief is granted restraining the respondent pending finalization of the matter. Costs are to stand over.

Orders

  • The order of court dated 17 August 2010 under case number 2270/10 is set aside.
  • The matter is postponed to 14 October 2010.