Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v V&A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 53/05) [2005] ZACC 21; 2006 (3) BCLR 351 (CC) (1 December 2005)

Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v V&A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 53/05) [2005] ZACC 21; 2006 (3) BCLR 351 (CC) (1 December 2005)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had no prospects of success on appeal regarding the collateral challenge to the Civil Aviation Authority's grounding order. The Court found that the respondents were entitled, as a matter of contract, to require the applicants to comply with the grounding order. The mere factual existence of the order was sufficient for the respondents to enforce compliance under the lease. The applicants had not sought to set aside the grounding order, and there was no justification for extending the rules of collateral attack to the facts of this case. Regarding the requirements for a final interdict, the Court found that the applicants also had no...

Citation
[2005] ZACC 21
Parties
Applicant: Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: The Huey Extreme Club; Respondent: V & A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Civil Aviation Authority
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2005
Case Number
CCT 53/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following a Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment Granting a Final Interdict.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Collateral Attack, Final Interdict, Contractual Compliance, Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Collateral Attack Final Interdict Contractual Compliance Administrative Action

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Huey Extreme Club

Applicant

V & A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

South African Civil Aviation Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following a Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment Granting a Final Interdict.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to collaterally attack the validity of the Civil Aviation Authority's grounding order in these proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for the grant of a final interdict were met in the circumstances of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had no prospects of success on appeal regarding the collateral challenge to the Civil Aviation Authority's grounding order. The Court found that the respondents were entitled, as a matter of contract, to require the applicants to comply with the grounding order. The mere factual existence of the order was sufficient for the respondents to enforce compliance under the lease. The applicants had not sought to set aside the grounding order, and there was no justification for extending the rules of collateral attack to the facts of this case. Regarding the requirements for a final interdict, the Court found that the applicants also had no...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to this Court is dismissed with costs.