Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited and Another (34321/10) [2020] ZAGPPHC 643 (30 October 2020)

Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited and Another (34321/10) [2020] ZAGPPHC 643 (30 October 2020)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, as there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the judgment on claim 1.1 and claim 2. However, the issues in dispute were mainly factual and did not raise a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the division, and costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 643
Parties
Applicant: Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited; Respondent: Transalloys (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Case Number
34321/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Claims 1.1 and 2.
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the division; costs are costs in the appeal.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Prescription of Claim
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Order Prescription of Claim

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited

Respondent

Transalloys (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Claims 1.1 and 2.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment on claim 1.1 and claim 2.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act for granting leave to appeal are satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal or to the Full Court of the division.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, as there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the judgment on claim 1.1 and claim 2. However, the issues in dispute were mainly factual and did not raise a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the division, and costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the division; costs are costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this division.
  • Costs are costs in the appeal.