Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Lam and Others (20204/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 27 (22 February 2018)

Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Lam and Others (20204/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 27 (22 February 2018)

The court found that all relevant issues had already been addressed in the previous judgment and was not persuaded that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. There was no compelling reason presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 27
Parties
Appellant: Norman & Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Manuel Fernando Martins Costa Holdings (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Pak Man Lam; Respondent: Chung Fung Metal Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kee Wah Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Chung Fung (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Norman Abkin; Respondent: Gary Abkin
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
20204/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Against Appellants.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Twala
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Costs Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman & Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Manuel Fernando Martins Costa Holdings (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Pak Man Lam

Respondent

Chung Fung Metal Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Kee Wah Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Chung Fung (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Norman Abkin

Respondent

Gary Abkin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Against Appellants.

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all relevant issues had already been addressed in the previous judgment and was not persuaded that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. There was no compelling reason presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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