Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd v Smith (17195/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 678 (2 September 2014)

Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd v Smith (17195/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 678 (2 September 2014)

The court found that, having considered the application for leave to appeal and the submissions of counsel, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of the division. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 678
Parties
Applicant: Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd; Respondent: David Henry Smith; Plaintiff: Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd; Defendant: Fantasy Construction Central (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: David Henry Smith; Defendant: Kenneth Bernard Stricker; Defendant: Adam Johannes Shepherd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2014
Case Number
17195/2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the full bench of the division. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
A.M.L. Phatudi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs in the Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs in the Appeal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd

Applicant

David Henry Smith

Respondent

Sci Essel Offshore Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Fantasy Construction Central (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

David Henry Smith

Defendant

Kenneth Bernard Stricker

Defendant

Adam Johannes Shepherd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the full bench of the division.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, having considered the application for leave to appeal and the submissions of counsel, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of the division. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the full bench of the division. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division.
  • Costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.