Knox D'Arcy Ltd. and Others v Jamieson and Others (283/95) [1996] ZASCA 58; 1996 (4) SA 348 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 669 (A); (29 May 1996)

Knox D'Arcy Ltd. and Others v Jamieson and Others (283/95) [1996] ZASCA 58; 1996 (4) SA 348 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 669 (A); (29 May 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal of the interim interdict was appealable as it was a final order disposing of substantial relief. However, on the merits, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for damages arising from unlawful competition, as the evidence did not support their claims...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 58
Parties
Appellant: Knox D'Arcy Limited; Appellant: Knox D'Arcy Overseas Services Limited; Appellant: Knox D'Arcy AG; Respondent: Jamieson: Christopher Samuel Andrew; Respondent: Jones: Malcolm Edward James Howard; Respondent: Krestahague International (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Krestahague International BV; Respondent: Ottley: Stephen Robert
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1996
Case Number
283/95
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Petition for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of application to lead further evidence and costs of two counsel throughout.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, F H Grosskopf, Harms, Scott
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Anti Dissipation Interdict, Appealability of Orders, Unlawful Competition, Injurious Falsehood, Restraint of Trade
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Anti Dissipation Interdict Appealability of Orders Unlawful Competition Injurious Falsehood Restraint of Trade

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Knox D'Arcy Limited

Appellant

Knox D'Arcy Overseas Services Limited

Appellant

Knox D'Arcy AG

Appellant

Jamieson: Christopher Samuel Andrew

Respondent

Jones: Malcolm Edward James Howard

Respondent

Krestahague International (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Krestahague International BV

Respondent

Ottley: Stephen Robert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Petition for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the refusal of an interim interdict appealable as a 'judgment or order' under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act?
  2. 2 Did the petitioners establish a prima facie case for damages arising from unlawful competition and related claims?
  3. 3 Were the respondents intentionally secreting or dissipating assets to frustrate any judgment against them?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal of the interim interdict was appealable as it was a final order disposing of substantial relief. However, on the merits, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for damages arising from unlawful competition, as the evidence did not support their claims regarding the diversion of customer connections or breach of fiduciary duties. The allegations of asset dissipation were based on unreliable hearsay and contradicted by objective facts, and the respondents' corporate structuring was for bona fide commercial reasons. The requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict were not met, as there was no proof of intent to defeat...

Court Disposition

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of application to lead further evidence and costs of two counsel throughout.

Orders

  • The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the application to lead further evidence and the costs pertaining to the appeal itself.
  • The costs of two counsel are to be allowed throughout.