Pratt v FirstRand Bank Ltd. (416/07) [2008] ZASCA 92; [2009] 1 All SA 158 (SCA); 2009 (2) SA 119 (SCA); (2009) 71 SATC 148 (12 September 2008)

Pratt v FirstRand Bank Ltd. (416/07) [2008] ZASCA 92; [2009] 1 All SA 158 (SCA); 2009 (2) SA 119 (SCA); (2009) 71 SATC 148 (12 September 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant bore the onus of proving the absence of permission from the Reserve Bank to remit the proceeds of the sale to Jersey. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence of absence of permission, which was fatal to her claim. The evidence led by the respondent, through Mr Ribbens, established that exchange control rulings issued by the Reserve Bank provided blanket permission for authorised dealers to remit proceeds of non-resident owned assets through normal banking channels. The court found that the respondent acted within the scope of these rulings and that the appellant did not challenge the evidence or provide countervailing evidence. The...

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 92
Parties
Appellant: Anne Elizabeth Mary Pratt; Respondent: FirstRand Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2008
Case Number
416/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Cloete, Heher, Jafta, Kgomo
Legal Topics
Exchange Control Regulations, Export of Capital, Admissibility of Evidence, Onus of Proof
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Exchange Control Regulations Export of Capital Admissibility of Evidence Onus of Proof

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

Parties

Anne Elizabeth Mary Pratt

Appellant

FirstRand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreements constituted transactions falling within the ambit of Exchange Control Regulation 10(1)(c).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had permission to conclude such agreements and/or was exempted from the provisions of that regulation.
  3. 3 If the respondent did not have permission or exemption, whether the agreements were a contravention of that regulation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant bore the onus of proving the absence of permission from the Reserve Bank to remit the proceeds of the sale to Jersey. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence of absence of permission, which was fatal to her claim. The evidence led by the respondent, through Mr Ribbens, established that exchange control rulings issued by the Reserve Bank provided blanket permission for authorised dealers to remit proceeds of non-resident owned assets through normal banking channels. The court found that the respondent acted within the scope of these rulings and that the appellant did not challenge the evidence or provide countervailing evidence. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.