Wright v Wright and Another (494/13) [2014] ZASCA 126; 2015 (1) SA 262 (SCA) (22 September 2014)

Wright v Wright and Another (494/13) [2014] ZASCA 126; 2015 (1) SA 262 (SCA) (22 September 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to provide admissible evidence to support his challenge to the referee's factual findings. The appellant's reliance on his expert's report, without confirmatory affidavits from persons with direct knowledge of the facts, rendered the evidence inadmissible hearsay. The court emphasized that factual findings of a referee appointed under section 19bis are binding unless shown to be unreasonable, irregular, or wrong. The appellant did not meet this threshold, nor did he provide motivated answers or countervailing evidence as required by law. Consequently, the high court was correct in adopting the referee's report without...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 126
Parties
Appellant: Alec Peter Wright; Respondent: William Robert Wright; Respondent: Wright Metals CC
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2014
Case Number
494/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maya, Shongwe, Majiedt, Saldulker, Gorven
Legal Topics
Referee Report, Partnership Accounting, Admissible Evidence, Challenge to Factual Findings, Motion Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Referee Report Partnership Accounting Admissible Evidence Challenge to Factual Findings Motion Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alec Peter Wright

Appellant

William Robert Wright

Respondent

Wright Metals CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established genuine disputes of fact on material aspects sufficient to challenge the referee's factual findings.
  2. 2 Whether the referee's report could be impugned on grounds of being unreasonable, irregular or wrong.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant provided admissible evidence to support the challenge to the referee's report.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to provide admissible evidence to support his challenge to the referee's factual findings. The appellant's reliance on his expert's report, without confirmatory affidavits from persons with direct knowledge of the facts, rendered the evidence inadmissible hearsay. The court emphasized that factual findings of a referee appointed under section 19bis are binding unless shown to be unreasonable, irregular, or wrong. The appellant did not meet this threshold, nor did he provide motivated answers or countervailing evidence as required by law. Consequently, the high court was correct in adopting the referee's report without...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.