Stanger N.O v Liebman (24227/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 872 (14 August 2024)

Stanger N.O v Liebman (24227/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 872 (14 August 2024)

The applicant failed to substantiate that the respondent is factually insolvent or that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors. The respondent demonstrated interests in companies and trusts sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, and the applicant did not explain why these interests were not attached. The alleged indirect advantages of sequestration were unsubstantiated and generalised. The sale of the vehicle was not shown to be an act of asset dissipation. The court found no basis to conclude that sequestration would benefit the body of creditors. The objection to the commissioning of the founding affidavit was dismissed, as affidavits commissioned in accordance with...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 872
Parties
Applicant: Aaron Stanger N.O.; Respondent: Bradley Brett Liebman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
24227/2021
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including counsel's costs on Scale B.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Acts of Insolvency, Advantage to Creditors, Commissioning of Affidavits
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Sequestration Acts of Insolvency Advantage to Creditors Commissioning of Affidavits

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

Parties

Aaron Stanger N.O.

Applicant

Bradley Brett Liebman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a liquidated claim against the respondent sufficient for sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is factually insolvent or has committed an act of insolvency under the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether there is reason to believe that sequestration will be to the advantage of creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to substantiate that the respondent is factually insolvent or that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors. The respondent demonstrated interests in companies and trusts sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, and the applicant did not explain why these interests were not attached. The alleged indirect advantages of sequestration were unsubstantiated and generalised. The sale of the vehicle was not shown to be an act of asset dissipation. The court found no basis to conclude that sequestration would benefit the body of creditors. The objection to the commissioning of the founding affidavit was dismissed, as affidavits commissioned in accordance with...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including counsel's costs on Scale B.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs, counsel's costs on Scale B.