PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-Operative Ltd and Another (451/2012, 468/2012) [2013] ZASCA 123 (23 September 2013)

PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-Operative Ltd and Another (451/2012, 468/2012) [2013] ZASCA 123 (23 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there were reasonable prospects of success on several grounds for expanding leave to appeal, including the setting aside of the initial application for leave to appeal as an irregular step, the omission to grant PWC leave to appeal costs orders related to amendments, and the limited costs order against PWC. The court held that the issues regarding the agreement not to appeal before both stages of the trial, the costs orders, and the successor liability of PWC warranted further consideration by an informed court with access to the full record. The court excluded leave to appeal on the prescription issue, as it was not substantively addressed in the...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 123
Parties
Appellant: PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc; Appellant: Hoek & Wiehahn; Appellant: Wiehahn Meyernel; Appellant: Price Waterhouse Meyernel; Appellant: Price Waterhouse; Respondent: National Potato Co-Operative Ltd; Respondent: IMF (Australia) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Case Number
451/2012, 468/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Expanded Leave to Appeal Following Partial Leave Granted by Trial Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the application for leave to appeal, except in relation to paragraph 4 concerning prescription, for which leave is not granted.
Judges
NAVSA, BRAND, TSHIQI, MAJIEDT, SWAIN
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders, Successor Liability, Prescription, Hearsay Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Costs Orders Successor Liability Prescription Hearsay Evidence

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

Parties

PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc

Appellant

Hoek & Wiehahn

Appellant

Wiehahn Meyernel

Appellant

Price Waterhouse Meyernel

Appellant

Price Waterhouse

Appellant

National Potato Co-Operative Ltd

Respondent

IMF (Australia) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Expanded Leave to Appeal Following Partial Leave Granted by Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be expanded to include additional grounds beyond those granted by the trial court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in refusing leave to appeal on the issue of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the omission to grant PWC leave to appeal costs orders related to amendments was an error.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there were reasonable prospects of success on several grounds for expanding leave to appeal, including the setting aside of the initial application for leave to appeal as an irregular step, the omission to grant PWC leave to appeal costs orders related to amendments, and the limited costs order against PWC. The court held that the issues regarding the agreement not to appeal before both stages of the trial, the costs orders, and the successor liability of PWC warranted further consideration by an informed court with access to the full record. The court excluded leave to appeal on the prescription issue, as it was not substantively addressed in the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the application for leave to appeal, except in relation to paragraph 4 concerning prescription, for which leave is not granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the application for leave to appeal, except that in relation to paragraph 4 of the application for leave to appeal, leave to appeal is not granted in respect of paragraph 3 of the order of the court below dated 14 March 2012.