Jurgens and Others v Botha (2019/24007)
Jurgens and Others v Botha (2019/24007) [2022] ZAGPJHC 586 (22 August 2022)
The court found that neither Jurgens nor Botha proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the other party deliberately and mala fide breached the terms of the court order. Botha's withdrawal of suretyship was lawful and did not constitute a prohibited banking or financial transaction under the order. His payment of advertising costs, though made without prior approval, was subsequently ratified and not shown to be mala fide. Jurgens's authorisation of increased rental and repayment of a loan, while not strictly compliant with the order's approval requirements, was done in the genuine belief that s…
Source excerpt
- Contempt Of Court
- Director Duties
- Shareholder Disputes
- Interpretation Of Court Orders
- Company Locus Standi