Press v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (01/12591) [2001] ZAGPHC 14 (29 May 2001)

Press v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (01/12591) [2001] ZAGPHC 14 (29 May 2001)

The court found that the applicant had failed to set out any basis recognized in law for challenging the implementation of the Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned for De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. The applicant's reliance on constitutional provisions regarding public interest and property rights was insufficient without a substantive legal foundation. The court dismissed the application on this ground alone, without considering other points raised by the respondent. Furthermore, to prevent further vexatious or repetitive litigation, the court ordered that the applicant may not bring any new application to intervene or postpone the scheme's implementation until all outstanding costs from...

Citation
[2001] ZAGPHC 14
Parties
Applicant: Charles Gregory Press; Respondent: De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2001
Case Number
01/12591
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Intervention and Postponement
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; applicant barred from further related applications until all costs paid.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Scheme of Arrangement, Intervention Application, Urgent Relief, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Scheme of Arrangement Intervention Application Urgent Relief Costs Orders

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

Charles Gregory Press

Applicant

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Intervention and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a legal basis to intervene in or postpone the implementation of the sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application is supported by recognized grounds in law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is barred from bringing further applications until costs are paid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had failed to set out any basis recognized in law for challenging the implementation of the Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned for De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. The applicant's reliance on constitutional provisions regarding public interest and property rights was insufficient without a substantive legal foundation. The court dismissed the application on this ground alone, without considering other points raised by the respondent. Furthermore, to prevent further vexatious or repetitive litigation, the court ordered that the applicant may not bring any new application to intervene or postpone the scheme's implementation until all outstanding costs from...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; applicant barred from further related applications until all costs paid.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant may not issue any new application seeking to intervene or postpone implementation of the Scheme of Arrangement under Case No. 01/7404 unless and until the applicant has paid to the respondent in full all costs ordered under Case No. 01/11815 and the costs order made in this judgment.