Seneca Civils (Pty) Ltd v Centriq Insurance Company (12450/16) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1378 (27 November 2023)

Seneca Civils (Pty) Ltd v Centriq Insurance Company (12450/16) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1378 (27 November 2023)

The court found that the interlocutory order compelling the defendant's expert to sign or produce a minute was not appealable. The order was procedural, did not dispose of any portion of the relief sought in the main proceedings, and was not definitive of the rights of the parties. The interests of justice did not require that leave to appeal be granted, as no irreparable harm or prejudice would result from the order. The plaintiff's point in limine regarding appealability was upheld, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1378
Parties
Plaintiff: Seneca Civils (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Centriq Insurance Company
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Case Number
12450/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
PH Malungana
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Expert Evidence, Rule 36 9a, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Expert Evidence Rule 36 9a 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seneca Civils (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Centriq Insurance Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory order compelling the defendant's expert to sign or produce a minute is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the order is final, definitive of the rights of the parties, or disposes of a substantial portion of the relief claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require leave to appeal to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interlocutory order compelling the defendant's expert to sign or produce a minute was not appealable. The order was procedural, did not dispose of any portion of the relief sought in the main proceedings, and was not definitive of the rights of the parties. The interests of justice did not require that leave to appeal be granted, as no irreparable harm or prejudice would result from the order. The plaintiff's point in limine regarding appealability was upheld, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's point in limine relating to appealability is upheld.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of counsel.