Wastie v McConnahie and Another (41754 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 50 (11 March 2013)

Wastie v McConnahie and Another (41754 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 50 (11 March 2013)

The applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to the proceeds of the property sale based on the alleged universal partnership and the history of joint business ventures. She established a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the funds were paid out and her claim subsequently succeeded, as she may be unable to recover her share. The first respondent failed to show any substantial prejudice if the interdict was granted, only making vague references to creditors without substantiating the claims. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and there was no adequate alternative remedy. Therefore, the court granted an interim interdict restraining the second respondent...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Michelle Wastie; Respondent: Adam Charles McConnahie; Respondent: Faurie Nell Inc
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Case Number
41754 /2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Before Action
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
S Mia
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Universal Partnership, Sale of Property, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Universal Partnership Sale of Property Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

Michelle Wastie

Applicant

Adam Charles McConnahie

Respondent

Faurie Nell Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Before Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to an interim interdict over the proceeds of the property sale.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the interdict is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether there is an absence of an adequate alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to the proceeds of the property sale based on the alleged universal partnership and the history of joint business ventures. She established a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the funds were paid out and her claim subsequently succeeded, as she may be unable to recover her share. The first respondent failed to show any substantial prejudice if the interdict was granted, only making vague references to creditors without substantiating the claims. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and there was no adequate alternative remedy. Therefore, the court granted an interim interdict restraining the second respondent...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The second respondent is interdicted and restrained from paying out R307,000.00 of the proceeds of the sale of the property to the first respondent or any person or institution nominated by him.
  • The order operates as an interim order pending finalisation and decision in the action instituted by the applicant under the same case number.