Shoprite Holdings Limited v Oblowitz and Others (6474/02) [2005] ZAWCHC 2; [2006] 3 All SA 491 (C) (1 January 2005)

Shoprite Holdings Limited v Oblowitz and Others (6474/02) [2005] ZAWCHC 2; [2006] 3 All SA 491 (C) (1 January 2005)

The court found that the expert determination was sufficiently unclear and potentially incapable of implementation, raising disputes of fact that could not be resolved on affidavit alone. The applicant made out a case for the hearing of oral evidence, as such evidence could influence the outcome of the main application regarding the interpretation and effect of the expert's determination. The court held that confidentiality of documents from arbitration does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure if required for the interests of justice. Regarding delay, the court accepted the applicant's explanation based on the complexity and volume of the dispute and found no significant...

Citation
[2005] ZAWCHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Holdings Limited; Respondent: Edwin Oblowitz; Respondent: SA Breweries Limited; Respondent: Arthur Andersen & Co.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2005
Case Number
6474/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Oral Evidence and Discovery in Main Application to Set Aside Expert Determination
Outcome
Application for oral evidence granted; discovery application falls away; costs reserved.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Contractual Mandate, Discovery Procedure, Delay in Review, Interpretation of Awards
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Expert Determination Contractual Mandate Discovery Procedure Delay in Review Interpretation of Awards

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

Parties

Shoprite Holdings Limited

Applicant

Edwin Oblowitz

Respondent

SA Breweries Limited

Respondent

Arthur Andersen & Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Oral Evidence and Discovery in Main Application to Set Aside Expert Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert determination by first respondent was sufficiently clear, definitive, and capable of implementation as required by the agreement.
  2. 2 Whether oral evidence should be heard to resolve disputes of fact arising from the expert determination.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in launching the main application precludes the applicant from proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the expert determination was sufficiently unclear and potentially incapable of implementation, raising disputes of fact that could not be resolved on affidavit alone. The applicant made out a case for the hearing of oral evidence, as such evidence could influence the outcome of the main application regarding the interpretation and effect of the expert's determination. The court held that confidentiality of documents from arbitration does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure if required for the interests of justice. Regarding delay, the court accepted the applicant's explanation based on the complexity and volume of the dispute and found no significant...

Court Disposition

Application for oral evidence granted; discovery application falls away; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The matter is referred for the hearing of oral evidence at a time to be arranged with the Registrar in relation to the disputes emerging from the affidavits in the main application.
  • All parties shall make discovery of all documentation in their possession or under their control within thirty days of the making of this order.