South Africa Case Law

Wilson v Prinsloo; In re: Prinsloo v Expidor 163 CC t/a The League of Gentleman and Another (CA12/19)

Wilson v Prinsloo; In re: Prinsloo v Expidor 163 CC t/a The League of Gentleman and Another (CA12/19) [2021] ZALAC 10; [2021] 8 BLLR 805 (LAC) ; (2021) 42 ILJ 1714 (GJ) (31 May 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA12/19

Judges

Davis JA, Jappie JA, Kathree Setiloane AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that there was no evidential basis to justify lifting the corporate veil and holding the appellant personally liable for the obligations of Expidor 163 CC. The respondent failed to invoke section 65 of the Close Corporation Act and did not provide evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or improper conduct in the management of the corporation. The mere involvement of the appellant in the business and his financial contributions did not amount to a gross abuse of juristic personality. The court emphasized that the separate legal personality of a corporation cannot be disreg…

Source excerpt

• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Close Corporation Act Section 65
• Joint And Several Liability
• Unfair Dismissal

Burley Appliances Limited v Grobbelaar N.O. and Others (3029/2001)

Burley Appliances Limited v Grobbelaar N.O. and Others (3029/2001) [2003] ZAWCHC 31; [2003] 3 All SA 505 (C); 2004 (1) SA 602 (C) (14 July 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3029/2001

Judges

H C Nel, Potgieter AJ

The High Court held that statutory claims under sections 64 and 65 of the Close Corporation Act are subject to ordinary prescription rules.

• Close Corporation Act Section 64
• Close Corporation Act Section 65
• Prescription Act Section 10 11 12
• Insolvency Act Section 34
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Reckless Trading