Lipschitz v Crook and Another (12395/2014) [2024] ZAGPJHC 105 (5 February 2024)

Lipschitz v Crook and Another (12395/2014) [2024] ZAGPJHC 105 (5 February 2024)

The court found that neither the application for leave to appeal nor the conditional cross appeal demonstrated reasonable prospects of success. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion on the issues raised. Accordingly, both applications were dismissed, and costs were awarded against the first and second respondents, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Larry Lipschitz; Respondent: Brian Stephen Crook; Respondent: The Sheriff, Sandton South
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2024
Case Number
12395/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Conditional Cross Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Both the application for leave to appeal and the conditional cross appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
ML Twala
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Order

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Lipschitz

Applicant

Brian Stephen Crook

Respondent

The Sheriff, Sandton South

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Conditional Cross Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether the conditional cross appeal should be granted if leave to appeal is granted.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the application for leave to appeal nor the conditional cross appeal demonstrated reasonable prospects of success. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion on the issues raised. Accordingly, both applications were dismissed, and costs were awarded against the first and second respondents, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Both the application for leave to appeal and the conditional cross appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Both the application for leave to appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.
  • The first and second respondents are liable to pay the costs of both the application for leave to appeal and the cross appeal, including the costs of two counsel.