Spitz v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (69692-2014; 32230-2001; 87714-2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 254 (1 June 2017)

Spitz v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (69692-2014; 32230-2001; 87714-2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 254 (1 June 2017)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise any material error of fact or law in the original judgment. The allegations of bias and denial of a fair hearing were unfounded, and the applicant did not produce any new evidence or documents to support his case for rescission. The principles applied in the main judgment, including those from Childerley Estate Stores, were correctly interpreted and applied. Statutory provisions precluded leave to appeal against the provisional sequestration order. The applicant did not challenge the factual or legal basis for the declaration as a vexatious litigant. There was no reasonable prospect that another court...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 254
Parties
Applicant: Barry Kuper Spitz; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Lauritz Lanser Dippenaar; Respondent: Firstrand Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2017
Case Number
69692/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Rescission, Sequestration, Striking Out, and Vexatious Litigant Orders.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Vexatious Litigant, Rescission of Judgment, Provisional Sequestration, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Vexatious Litigant Rescission of Judgment Provisional Sequestration Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Kuper Spitz

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Lauritz Lanser Dippenaar

Respondent

Firstrand Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Rescission, Sequestration, Striking Out, and Vexatious Litigant Orders.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the orders for rescission, provisional sequestration, striking out, and declaration as a vexatious litigant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing or suffered bias.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant produced any new evidence or documents to support rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise any material error of fact or law in the original judgment. The allegations of bias and denial of a fair hearing were unfounded, and the applicant did not produce any new evidence or documents to support his case for rescission. The principles applied in the main judgment, including those from Childerley Estate Stores, were correctly interpreted and applied. Statutory provisions precluded leave to appeal against the provisional sequestration order. The applicant did not challenge the factual or legal basis for the declaration as a vexatious litigant. There was no reasonable prospect that another court...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of employing two counsel.