Nash and Others v Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425) and Others (545/2020) [2021] ZASCA 144 (11 October 2021)

Nash and Others v Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425) and Others (545/2020) [2021] ZASCA 144 (11 October 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants were not required to bring a separate prior application for leave to institute proceedings; it was sufficient that leave was sought within the urgent application. The court found that the requirements for intervention by the additional appellants were met, as they had a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter. The curators' decision to exclude the appellants from the Fund and refund their contributions posed significant irreparable prejudice, including loss of pension benefits and tax liability. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as the appellants established a prima facie right under threat,...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 144
Parties
Appellant: Simon John Nash; Appellant: Cadac (Pty) Limited; Appellant: Antoinette Cronje; Appellant: Iris Rose Schoeman; Appellant: Samantha Mays; Respondent: The Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425); Respondent: Antony Louis Mostert NO; Respondent: Johan Esterhuizen NO; Respondent: Karen Keevy NO; Respondent: NMG Administrators (Pty) Limited (Registration Number: 1998/005937/07)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2021
Case Number
545/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and substituted with orders granting leave to institute proceedings, intervention, and interim interdict.
Judges
Dambuza, Makgoka, Mbatha, Ledwaba, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Intervention of Parties, Pension Fund Administration, Vexatious Litigation
Civil Procedure Labour Law Interim Interdict Leave to Institute Proceedings Intervention of Parties Pension Fund Administration Vexatious Litigation

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

Parties

Simon John Nash

Appellant

Cadac (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Antoinette Cronje

Appellant

Iris Rose Schoeman

Appellant

Samantha Mays

Appellant

The Cadac Pension Fund (In Curatorship) (Registration Number: 12/8/0020425)

Respondent

Antony Louis Mostert NO

Respondent

Johan Esterhuizen NO

Respondent

Karen Keevy NO

Respondent

NMG Administrators (Pty) Limited (Registration Number: 1998/005937/07)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants required leave of the court to institute the urgent interlocutory application.
  2. 2 Whether a separate prior application for leave was necessary before launching the interdict application.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for intervention by additional appellants were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants were not required to bring a separate prior application for leave to institute proceedings; it was sufficient that leave was sought within the urgent application. The court found that the requirements for intervention by the additional appellants were met, as they had a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter. The curators' decision to exclude the appellants from the Fund and refund their contributions posed significant irreparable prejudice, including loss of pension benefits and tax liability. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as the appellants established a prima facie right under threat,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and substituted with orders granting leave to institute proceedings, intervention, and interim interdict.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg is set aside and substituted.