Longman Distillers Ltd. v Drop Inn Group of Liquor Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd. (442/88) [1990] ZASCA 39; 1990 (2) SA 906 (AD); (30 March 1990)

Longman Distillers Ltd. v Drop Inn Group of Liquor Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd. (442/88) [1990] ZASCA 39; 1990 (2) SA 906 (AD); (30 March 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order for costs is not immune from attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that public policy or fairness prohibits such attachment, noting that the law does not recognize costs orders as exempt property and that public policy should not be used to create new exemptions. The court further found that any irregularities in the original proceedings were irrelevant to the right to seek attachment in the present application. Once the requirements for attachment ad fundandam are met, the court has no discretion to refuse the order. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 39
Parties
Appellant: Longman Distillers Ltd; Respondent: Drop Inn Group of Liquor Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1990
Case Number
442/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Attachment Ad Fundandam Aut Confirmandam Iurisdictionem
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
CORBETT, E M GROSSKOPF, KUMLEBEN, NICHOLAS, GOLDSTONE
Legal Topics
Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem, Public Policy Exception, Costs Order Attachment
Civil Procedure Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem Public Policy Exception Costs Order Attachment

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

Parties

Longman Distillers Ltd

Appellant

Drop Inn Group of Liquor Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Attachment Ad Fundandam Aut Confirmandam Iurisdictionem

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs is immune from attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether public policy prohibits the attachment of a costs order in the circumstances of this case.
  3. 3 Whether irregularities in the original application affect the right to seek attachment of the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order for costs is not immune from attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that public policy or fairness prohibits such attachment, noting that the law does not recognize costs orders as exempt property and that public policy should not be used to create new exemptions. The court further found that any irregularities in the original proceedings were irrelevant to the right to seek attachment in the present application. Once the requirements for attachment ad fundandam are met, the court has no discretion to refuse the order. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.