Kirsten v QCR Computer and Printer Services CC and Others (01/13046) [2001] ZAGPHC 16 (19 July 2001)

Kirsten v QCR Computer and Printer Services CC and Others (01/13046) [2001] ZAGPHC 16 (19 July 2001)

The applicant established a prima facie case for the provisional winding-up of the first respondent on just and equitable grounds due to a breakdown in the relationship between members. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of showing a suitable alternative remedy under section 36 of the Close Corporations Act, as they did not provide sufficient facts or a suggested amount for acquisition of the applicant's interest. The court found that, in the absence of adequate information to make an order under section 36, and given the deadlock and financial disorder, provisional winding-up is appropriate. The applicant's unorthodox conduct did not preclude relief, especially as he...

Citation
[2001] ZAGPHC 16
Parties
Applicant: Kirsten, Dawid Stephanus; Respondent: QCR Computer and Printer Services CC; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2001
Case Number
01/13046
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Application / Provisional Order
Outcome
Provisional winding-up order granted; costs reserved.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Close Corporation Winding Up, Just and Equitable Ground, Deadlock Principle, Section 36 Close Corporations Act
Commercial and Corporate Close Corporation Winding Up Just and Equitable Ground Deadlock Principle Section 36 Close Corporations Act

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirsten, Dawid Stephanus

Applicant

QCR Computer and Printer Services CC

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Application / Provisional Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent should be placed under provisional winding-up on the grounds of inability to pay debts and just and equitable considerations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct precludes him from relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have established an alternative remedy under section 36 of the Close Corporations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a prima facie case for the provisional winding-up of the first respondent on just and equitable grounds due to a breakdown in the relationship between members. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of showing a suitable alternative remedy under section 36 of the Close Corporations Act, as they did not provide sufficient facts or a suggested amount for acquisition of the applicant's interest. The court found that, in the absence of adequate information to make an order under section 36, and given the deadlock and financial disorder, provisional winding-up is appropriate. The applicant's unorthodox conduct did not preclude relief, especially as he...

Court Disposition

Provisional winding-up order granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The first respondent is placed under provisional winding-up in the hands of the Master of the High Court.
  • All interested persons are to show cause on 4 September 2001 why this provisional order should not be made final.