Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated and Another v Du Toit and Others In re: Du Toit and Others v Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated and Others (73909/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 47 (1 April 2011)

Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated and Another v Du Toit and Others In re: Du Toit and Others v Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated and Others (73909/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 47 (1 April 2011)

The court found that, despite the Applicants' contention that the Respondents have persistently instituted vexatious proceedings, the circumstances did not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay. The Respondents' actions, while numerous, were not so manifestly unfounded as to warrant summary dismissal. The merits of the Respondents' claims had not been fully considered in previous proceedings, which were disposed of on technical grounds. The right of access to courts is fundamental and should only be restricted in clear cases of abuse. The issue of prescription, particularly regarding the minor Plaintiff, was addressed, but did not alter the overall conclusion. The Applicants...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated; Applicant: Matthys Johannes Blom; Respondent: Barend Johannes Jacobus Du Toit; Respondent: Daniel Peter Du Toit; Respondent: Francois Jonathan Du Toit; Respondent: Tamarin Du Toit; Respondent: Tiffany Anastacia Du Toit; Respondent: Aletta Catharina Du Toit; Respondent: Pierre van Rooyen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2011
Case Number
73909/2009
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings Under Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act
Outcome
Application for postponement dismissed with costs; main application for permanent stay dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goodey AJ
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Permanent Stay, Prescription Act, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigation Permanent Stay Prescription Act Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pricewaterhousecoopers Incorporated

Applicant

Matthys Johannes Blom

Applicant

Barend Johannes Jacobus Du Toit

Respondent

Daniel Peter Du Toit

Respondent

Francois Jonathan Du Toit

Respondent

Tamarin Du Toit

Respondent

Tiffany Anastacia Du Toit

Respondent

Aletta Catharina Du Toit

Respondent

Pierre van Rooyen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings Under Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents have persistently and without reasonable ground instituted legal proceedings against the Applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the actions instituted by the Respondents are vexatious and constitute an abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the claims brought by the Respondents have prescribed, particularly in relation to the minor Plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the Applicants' contention that the Respondents have persistently instituted vexatious proceedings, the circumstances did not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay. The Respondents' actions, while numerous, were not so manifestly unfounded as to warrant summary dismissal. The merits of the Respondents' claims had not been fully considered in previous proceedings, which were disposed of on technical grounds. The right of access to courts is fundamental and should only be restricted in clear cases of abuse. The issue of prescription, particularly regarding the minor Plaintiff, was addressed, but did not alter the overall conclusion. The Applicants...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement dismissed with costs; main application for permanent stay dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for permanent stay is dismissed with costs.