Moore v Van Goidsenhoven and Another (30515/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 (17 January 2023)

Moore v Van Goidsenhoven and Another (30515/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 (17 January 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the alleged irreparable harm and monetary loss, and did not amend the particulars of claim to include a monetary claim that required protection. The arguments advanced were generalised and lacked specificity. The applicant did not satisfy the court that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the refusal of the interim interdict. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The normal principle regarding costs applies, and costs follow the event.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Trevor Allan Moore; Respondent: Arlene Van Goidsenhoven; Respondent: The Current Occupiers of 26 Bellingham Crescent
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
30515/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Property Transfer Dispute, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Property Transfer Dispute Leave to Appeal 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Allan Moore

Applicant

Arlene Van Goidsenhoven

Respondent

The Current Occupiers of 26 Bellingham Crescent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal against the refusal of an interim interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable harm justifying the granting of interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the event in the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the alleged irreparable harm and monetary loss, and did not amend the particulars of claim to include a monetary claim that required protection. The arguments advanced were generalised and lacked specificity. The applicant did not satisfy the court that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the refusal of the interim interdict. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The normal principle regarding costs applies, and costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.