Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Lluivia Trade Division CC v Stassen and Others (2023/055569) [2024] ZAGPJHC 960 (30 September 2024)
The High Court held two close-corporation members personally liable under section 64 after they sold unapproved face masks and acted recklessly; condonation was refused.
Saint Gobain Construction Products South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mathula Investment and Construction CC and Others (2023/112275) [2024] ZAGPJHC 648 (5 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in a fraud and enrichment action, finding the pleadings sufficiently alleged causes of action.
Spar Group Limited v Nedbank Limited and Others (39358/13) [2021] ZAGPJHC 45 (15 February 2021)
The court found that Spar failed to establish that Nedbank was knowingly a party to the reckless or fraudulent carrying on of Rodtrade's business as required by section 64 of the Close Corporations Act. The evidence showed Nedbank acted only as banker and did not participate in Rodtrade's business operations. Spar also failed to prove that Nedbank owed a legal duty to disclose the perfection of its notarial bond, as Spar had contractual access to information and operational oversight of Rodtrade. The omission by Nedbank was not wrongful, and no delictual liability arose. However, regarding Cl…
Source excerpt
Deksny Trading CC and Another v Hernani In Re: Deksny Trading CC and Others v Hernani (58802/2011) [2017] ZAGPPHC 582 (18 August 2017)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against a judgment finding the applicants liable under section 64 of the Close Corporations Act and ordering costs.
Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd v Schoultz and Others (4954/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 81 (20 June 2017)
The court held that, although the application for default judgment was unopposed and the defendants were barred, the nature of the relief sought under Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act was not for a liquidated claim or debt. In such cases, Rule 31(2)(a) requires the court to hear evidence before granting default judgment. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants had acted recklessly or with gross negligence in the conduct of Triosafe Transport CC's business. The court relied on the principle established in Minnaar v Van Rooy…
Source excerpt
Steenkamp v Murray (80173/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1244 (21 October 2016)
The High Court held a close corporation member personally liable under section 64 after admitting use of agency funds for operational expenses. Prescription failed.
M A Vleisagentskap cc and Another v Shaw N.O. (6859/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 54; 2003 (6) SA 714 (C) (15 October 2003)
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Sacks's conduct fell within the scope of section 64(1) of the Close Corporations Act. The evidence did not establish that Sacks acted recklessly, with gross negligence, or with intent to defraud creditors during the relevant period. The longstanding business practices, ongoing collections from debtors, and the possibility of future dividends undermined the plaintiffs' claim for quantifiable damages. The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to exclude the likelihood of further dividends, nor did…
Source excerpt
Explore more
