South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited and Others v Leppan Beech Incorporated and Others (67751/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 736 (19 September 2014)

South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited and Others v Leppan Beech Incorporated and Others (67751/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 736 (19 September 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action arises from the written agreement entered into between the parties, which makes provision for the parties' respective rights in the event of breach. The defendants' argument that liability should be determined by their status at the time of breach rather than at the time of contracting was rejected. The court held that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the facts, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The defendants' interpretation of section 23 of the Attorneys Act was not supported by the agreement or the law.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 736
Parties
Plaintiff: South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited; Plaintiff: Sasfin Bank Limited; Plaintiff: Sunlyn (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Leppan Beech Incorporated; Defendant: Megan Elizabeth Jarvis; Defendant: Sello Eugene Phajane; Defendant: Warren Robert Beech; Defendant: Deidre Venter (previously Bone); Defendant: Kevin Pietersen; Defendant: Wessel Johannes Jacobus Badenhorst; Defendant: Elizabeth Louw
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Case Number
67751/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 31 March 2014.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants.
Judges
Makhubele
Legal Topics
Directors Liability, Breach of Contract, Leave to Appeal Test, Attorneys Act Section 23
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Directors Liability Breach of Contract Leave to Appeal Test Attorneys Act Section 23

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited

Plaintiff

Sasfin Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Sunlyn (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Leppan Beech Incorporated

Defendant

Megan Elizabeth Jarvis

Defendant

Sello Eugene Phajane

Defendant

Warren Robert Beech

Defendant

Deidre Venter (previously Bone)

Defendant

Kevin Pietersen

Defendant

Wessel Johannes Jacobus Badenhorst

Defendant

Elizabeth Louw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 31 March 2014.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable under section 23 of the Attorneys Act for breach of contract after resigning as directors.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's cause of action is contractual or arises only upon cancellation of the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action arises from the written agreement entered into between the parties, which makes provision for the parties' respective rights in the event of breach. The defendants' argument that liability should be determined by their status at the time of breach rather than at the time of contracting was rejected. The court held that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the facts, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The defendants' interpretation of section 23 of the Attorneys Act was not supported by the agreement or the law.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and own client.