Wilson v C Sport South Africa (Pty) Ltd (13744/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 221 (20 November 2009)

Wilson v C Sport South Africa (Pty) Ltd (13744/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 221 (20 November 2009)

The court found that another court might reasonably come to a different conclusion regarding the application by the third applicant, and therefore granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in respect of the third applicant. The application for leave to appeal by the fifth applicant was refused as the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success. Costs in respect of the third applicant's application will be costs in the appeal, while the fifth applicant's application was refused with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 221
Parties
Applicant: Samantha Louise Wilson; Applicant: Circa Events (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Circa Hospitality; Applicant: Moon Trading 9 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Tharine Wilson; Respondent: C Sport (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Case Number
13744/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the third applicant; leave to appeal refused to the fifth applicant.
Judges
Cleaver
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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

Samantha Louise Wilson

Applicant

Circa Events (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Circa Hospitality

Applicant

Moon Trading 9 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Tharine Wilson

Applicant

C Sport (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the third applicant.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the fifth applicant.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that another court might reasonably come to a different conclusion regarding the application by the third applicant, and therefore granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in respect of the third applicant. The application for leave to appeal by the fifth applicant was refused as the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success. Costs in respect of the third applicant's application will be costs in the appeal, while the fifth applicant's application was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the third applicant; leave to appeal refused to the fifth applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the third applicant to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • Costs of the third applicant's application will be costs in the appeal.