Murray NO v King (5984/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 68 (22 February 2013)

Murray NO v King (5984/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 68 (22 February 2013)

The court found that the respondent was served with and had knowledge of the preservation order, yet wilfully and persistently refused to comply with its terms. The respondent's conduct was obstructive and aimed at frustrating the execution of the order, including refusing access to properties, vehicles, and documents, and disputing the applicant's authority. The mediation and arbitration clauses in the preservation order did not excuse non-compliance or justify a stay of proceedings. The respondent failed to advance any evidence to establish reasonable doubt as to wilfulness or good faith. The requirements for contempt were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the urgency of the matter...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Cloete Murray N.O.; Respondent: David Cunningham King
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Case Number
5984/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order and Related Relief
Outcome
The respondent is found in contempt of the preservation order and ordered to purge his contempt within 24 hours of service of this order. Failing compliance, the respondent is committed to prison for three months, suspended for three years, and the Sheriff is authorised to execute the orders. The respondent is...
Judges
Pretorius
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Curator Bonis, Preservation Order, Arbitration Stay, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Curator Bonis Preservation Order Arbitration Stay Urgent Interdict

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

Parties

Cloete Murray N.O.

Applicant

David Cunningham King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the preservation order granted on 14 November 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is urgent and warrants immediate relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is obliged to comply with the preservation order and deliver specified assets and documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was served with and had knowledge of the preservation order, yet wilfully and persistently refused to comply with its terms. The respondent's conduct was obstructive and aimed at frustrating the execution of the order, including refusing access to properties, vehicles, and documents, and disputing the applicant's authority. The mediation and arbitration clauses in the preservation order did not excuse non-compliance or justify a stay of proceedings. The respondent failed to advance any evidence to establish reasonable doubt as to wilfulness or good faith. The requirements for contempt were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the urgency of the matter...

Court Disposition

The respondent is found in contempt of the preservation order and ordered to purge his contempt within 24 hours of service of this order. Failing compliance, the respondent is committed to prison for three months, suspended for three years, and the Sheriff is authorised to execute the orders. The respondent is...

Orders

  • The matter is declared urgent.
  • The respondent is found in contempt of the preservation order granted on 14 November 2012.