Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd Another v Van Heever NO and Others (42818/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 980 (31 August 2023)

Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd Another v Van Heever NO and Others (42818/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 980 (31 August 2023)

The court found that the respondents, as applicants in the intervention application, are peregrini with funds located in Australia, making recovery of costs difficult for the applicants. The court considered all relevant factors, including the inconvenience and expense of enforcing a costs order abroad, and applied...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 980
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Jacobus Hendrik Steyn; Applicant: Gunter Donald Freyer; Applicant: Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Guardian Integrated Systems CC; Respondent: Theo Van Den Heever N.O.; Respondent: Nurjehan Abdool Gafaar Omar N.O.; Respondent: Thea Christina Lourens N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Case Number
42818/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
MIA
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus Vs Incola, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Vs Incola Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Jacobus Hendrik Steyn

Applicant

Gunter Donald Freyer

Applicant

Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Guardian Integrated Systems CC

Applicant

Theo Van Den Heever N.O.

Respondent

Nurjehan Abdool Gafaar Omar N.O.

Respondent

Thea Christina Lourens N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in granting an order for security for costs against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the court exercised its discretion correctly in considering the relevant factors for security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents, as applicants in an intervention application, should be required to provide security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, as applicants in the intervention application, are peregrini with funds located in Australia, making recovery of costs difficult for the applicants. The court considered all relevant factors, including the inconvenience and expense of enforcing a costs order abroad, and applied the principles set out in Mystic River and Shepstone & Wylie. The respondents did not contest the quantum of security, only their liability, and failed to demonstrate that the court had taken into account irrelevant considerations or applied incorrect legal principles. The court held that fairness and equity dictate that the respondents should provide security for costs. The...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, which shall include the costs of two counsel.