Ponelat v Shrepfer (17318/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 337 (18 October 2010)

Ponelat v Shrepfer (17318/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 337 (18 October 2010)

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on both the facts and the law regarding the existence of a universal partnership between the parties. The applicant's arguments regarding the evolution of legal principles in light of constitutional imperatives and societal changes were considered substantial enough to warrant consideration by a higher court. The respondent did not oppose the referral to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 337
Parties
Applicant: Heinz Gunther Ponelat; Respondent: Erica Schrepfer
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2010
Case Number
17318/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. Costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Moosa
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Cohabitation Agreement, Leave to Appeal, Breach of Promise
Family and Children Civil Procedure Universal Partnership Cohabitation Agreement Leave to Appeal Breach of Promise

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

Heinz Gunther Ponelat

Applicant

Erica Schrepfer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a universal partnership existed between the parties on the basis of a tacit agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established only a cohabitation agreement and not a universal partnership.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the findings of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on both the facts and the law regarding the existence of a universal partnership between the parties. The applicant's arguments regarding the evolution of legal principles in light of constitutional imperatives and societal changes were considered substantial enough to warrant consideration by a higher court. The respondent did not oppose the referral to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. Costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • Costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.