Wallace v Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd (1153/2005)
Wallace v Ballprop Ten (Pty) Ltd (1153/2005) [2007] ZAWCHC 91 (16 October 2007)
The court found that, despite several suspicious features and apparent improbabilities in the defendant's counterclaim, it could not at this stage conclude that the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or manifestly unsubstantial. The admitted claim and the counterclaim, while arising from different agreements, both relate to the broader commercial relationship between the parties. The court noted that Rule 22(4) is designed to avoid multiplicity of actions and to resolve all issues between the parties in one trial. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that it would suffer especial financial p…
Source excerpt
- Rule 22 4 Postponement
- Counterclaim Set Off
- Joint Venture Agreement
- Admitted Claim
- Judicial Discretion