Matthews v Merb (Pty) Ltd and Others (88753/2014; 41461/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 419 (19 August 2020)

Matthews v Merb (Pty) Ltd and Others (88753/2014; 41461/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 419 (19 August 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material misdirection in the trial court's factual or credibility findings. The adverse credibility finding against the applicant was made after careful observation and was not lightly reached. The lists provided by both parties were considered, but the court was not convinced that another court would reach different conclusions. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as there were no reasonable prospects of success.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 419
Parties
Applicant: Michael Brian Matthews; Respondent: Merb (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rowan Wauchope Matthews; Respondent: Douglasdale Dairy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wauchope & Kilgour (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2020
Case Number
88753/2014; 41461/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Two Consolidated Actions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Credibility of Witnesses, Findings of Fact, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Credibility of Witnesses Findings of Fact Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Brian Matthews

Applicant

Merb (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Rowan Wauchope Matthews

Respondent

Douglasdale Dairy (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Wauchope & Kilgour (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Two Consolidated Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects that another court would reach different findings of fact.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court materially misdirected itself in its factual and credibility findings.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the adverse credibility findings against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material misdirection in the trial court's factual or credibility findings. The adverse credibility finding against the applicant was made after careful observation and was not lightly reached. The lists provided by both parties were considered, but the court was not convinced that another court would reach different conclusions. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as there were no reasonable prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.