Smith v Parker Beusekom Partnership (773/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 11 (23 January 2023)

Smith v Parker Beusekom Partnership (773/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 11 (23 January 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficiently full explanation for the delay in bringing the application for security for costs. The applicant was not candid in its founding affidavit, omitting reference to the earlier notice of demand and failing to explain why the first notice was not pursued. The respondent was shown to possess sufficient assets in South Africa, specifically the aircraft, which was valued well in excess of the amount sought for security. The court was not persuaded that the respondent's conduct was vexatious or mala fide, nor that the applicant was inadequately protected. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Shaun Smith; Respondent: Parker Beusekom Partnership
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2023
Case Number
773/2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Opposed Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus, Rule 47 Uniform Rules, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Application
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Rule 47 Uniform Rules Judicial Discretion Delay in Application

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Smith

Applicant

Parker Beusekom Partnership

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Opposed Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondent to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's status as a peregrinus justifies the demand for security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant acted as soon as practicable after commencement of proceedings in demanding security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficiently full explanation for the delay in bringing the application for security for costs. The applicant was not candid in its founding affidavit, omitting reference to the earlier notice of demand and failing to explain why the first notice was not pursued. The respondent was shown to possess sufficient assets in South Africa, specifically the aircraft, which was valued well in excess of the amount sought for security. The court was not persuaded that the respondent's conduct was vexatious or mala fide, nor that the applicant was inadequately protected. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.