Mac Gillivray v Daneel (88335/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 792 (22 November 2021)

Mac Gillivray v Daneel (88335/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 792 (22 November 2021)

The court found that the second applicant failed to prosecute the application for leave to appeal and did not file written submissions as directed. There was no evidence of a bona fide defense or reasonable prospects of success that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application appeared to be a delaying tactic rather than a genuine attempt to challenge the summary judgment. The conduct of the second applicant justified a special costs order on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 792
Parties
Applicant: Craig John Mac Gillivray; Applicant: Cornelia Louise Daneel; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2021
Case Number
88335/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
A.C. Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Costs Order, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Summary Judgment Costs Order Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig John Mac Gillivray

Applicant

Cornelia Louise Daneel

Applicant

The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the summary judgment order.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was launched bona fide or merely to delay execution.
  3. 3 Whether a special costs order is warranted against the second applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant failed to prosecute the application for leave to appeal and did not file written submissions as directed. There was no evidence of a bona fide defense or reasonable prospects of success that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application appeared to be a delaying tactic rather than a genuine attempt to challenge the summary judgment. The conduct of the second applicant justified a special costs order on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.