Venmop 275 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cleverland Projects (Pty) and Another (2014/14286) [2015] ZAGPJHC 176; 2016 (1) SA 78 (GJ) (3 August 2015)

Venmop 275 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cleverland Projects (Pty) and Another (2014/14286) [2015] ZAGPJHC 176; 2016 (1) SA 78 (GJ) (3 August 2015)

The court found that the letter dated 19 February 2014 was not privileged as it did not form part of genuine settlement negotiations, but was merely an offer to pay the award in instalments after the dispute had been resolved. The applicants failed to show good cause for an extension of the six-week period...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 176
Parties
Applicant: Venmop 275 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Second Applicant (the mother); Respondent: Cleverlad Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Second Respondent
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2015
Case Number
2014/14286
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale, except for costs related to the answering affidavit.
Judges
J R Peter
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Review, Gross Irregularity, Peremption, Good Cause Extension, Discovery and Evidence, Without Prejudice Privilege
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Award Review Gross Irregularity Peremption Good Cause Extension Discovery and Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege

Source-derived case record

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 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venmop 275 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Second Applicant (the mother)

Applicant

Cleverlad Projects (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter dated 19 February 2014 is inadmissible as privileged in aid of settlement.
  2. 2 Whether good cause exists for extension of the time period prescribed in section 33(2) of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants perempted their right to apply for setting aside the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the letter dated 19 February 2014 was not privileged as it did not form part of genuine settlement negotiations, but was merely an offer to pay the award in instalments after the dispute had been resolved. The applicants failed to show good cause for an extension of the six-week period prescribed by section 33(2) of the Arbitration Act, as their explanation for delay was unsatisfactory and not accompanied by prospects of success. The applicants' conduct in offering to pay the award amounted to acquiescence and peremption of their right to challenge the award. The arbitrator's refusal to order production of financial documents was a proper exercise of discretion and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale, except for costs related to the answering affidavit.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay respondents' costs, jointly and severally, on the attorney-client scale, the one paying the other to be absolved.