Liebman v Liebman In re: Liebman v Liebman (24227/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 957 (5 December 2022)

Liebman v Liebman In re: Liebman v Liebman (24227/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 957 (5 December 2022)

The court found that the respondent, despite protestations of continued domicile in South Africa, had relocated to the United States for medical reasons and to be with family, shipped his assets abroad, and maintained only minimal ties to South Africa. The respondent’s intention to return was not substantiated by facts, and his physical absence was prolonged. The court held that the respondent is a peregrinus, lacking sufficient assets in South Africa to satisfy a potential costs order. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to furnish security for costs in the sequestration application, with the registrar to determine the amount, form, and manner. If security is not furnished within...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 957
Parties
Applicant: Bradley Brett Liebman; Respondent: Atholl David Victor Liebman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2022
Case Number
24227/2021
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Hearing of Main Sequestration Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted against the respondent.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus Status, Domicile of Choice, Sequestration Application
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Status Domicile of Choice Sequestration Application

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Brett Liebman

Applicant

Atholl David Victor Liebman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Hearing of Main Sequestration Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is a peregrinus or incola of South Africa for purposes of security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs in the sequestration application.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has sufficient assets in South Africa to satisfy a costs order if unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, despite protestations of continued domicile in South Africa, had relocated to the United States for medical reasons and to be with family, shipped his assets abroad, and maintained only minimal ties to South Africa. The respondent’s intention to return was not substantiated by facts, and his physical absence was prolonged. The court held that the respondent is a peregrinus, lacking sufficient assets in South Africa to satisfy a potential costs order. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to furnish security for costs in the sequestration application, with the registrar to determine the amount, form, and manner. If security is not furnished within...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to furnish the applicant with security for the costs of the sequestration application.
  • The registrar is to determine the form, amount, and manner of the security and communicate this to both parties.