JR v AL (21609/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 814 (6 December 2021)

JR v AL (21609/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 814 (6 December 2021)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal had already been addressed in the previous judgment and that nothing presented persuaded the court that another court would find differently or disturb the discretion exercised. The respondent failed to meet the raised threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and relevant case law. The seriousness of the conduct and the willfulness of the respondent were emphasized, and the imposed fine was not found to be unreasonable. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 814
Parties
Applicant: JR; Respondent: AL
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2021
Case Number
21609/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
I Opperman
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Punitive Costs, Sentence Interference, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Punitive Costs Sentence Interference Reasonable Prospects of Success

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JR

Applicant

AL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order of 28 October 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or a compelling reason for appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the imposed fine was unreasonable in comparison to similar cases.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal had already been addressed in the previous judgment and that nothing presented persuaded the court that another court would find differently or disturb the discretion exercised. The respondent failed to meet the raised threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and relevant case law. The seriousness of the conduct and the willfulness of the respondent were emphasized, and the imposed fine was not found to be unreasonable. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.