South Africa Case Law

Wagner N.O v Gijsbers N.O and Others (20876/19)

Wagner N.O v Gijsbers N.O and Others (20876/19) [2024] ZAWCHC 155; 2024 (6) SA 296 (WCC) (5 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20876/19

Judge

A De Wet

The court found that the applicant, as the official receiver appointed in Austria, has the necessary locus standi to seek recognition in South Africa. The evidence established a real prospect of a shortfall in the Austrian estate, and even if not, a shortfall is not a prerequisite for recognition under common law. The principles of comity, convenience, and equity favour recognition, as the surplus in the South African estate can be utilised for the benefit of Austrian creditors without prejudice to South African creditors. Section 116 of the Insolvency Act does not preclude the relief sought,…

Source excerpt

• Cross Border Insolvency
• Recognition Of Foreign Trustee
• Removal Of Surplus Funds
• Locus Standi
• Security For Costs

Lagoon Beach Hotel v Lehane (235/2015)

Lagoon Beach Hotel v Lehane (235/2015) [2015] ZASCA 210; [2016] 1 All SA 660 (SCA); 2016 (3) SA 143 (SCA) (21 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

235/2015

Judges

Navsa, Cachalia, Leach, Tshiqi, Willis

The Supreme Court of Appeal recognized an Irish Official Assignee and confirmed an interim preservation order over Lagoon Beach Hotel assets, with limited variation to the costs and statutory reference.

• Cross Border Insolvency
• Recognition Of Foreign Trustee
• Interim Interdict
• Preservation Order
• Locus Standi
• Comity And Convenience

Hassan and Another v Berrange NO (170/05)

Hassan and Another v Berrange NO (170/05) [2006] ZASCA 79; 2012 (6) SA 329 (SCA) (31 May 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

170/05

Judges

Mpati, Zulman, Farlam, Lewis, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent, as provisional liquidator, had established a liquidated claim against the appellants arising from the misappropriation of MITRAJAYA shares, with the amount readily ascertainable from market values. The first appellant's conduct in pledging and disposing of the shares without proper board or shareholder authority, and in breach of statutory requirements, constituted a clear act of insolvency under section 8(d) of the Insolvency Act. The attempted transfer of funds abroad further evidenced intent to prejudice creditors. The court held that…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Procedure
• Acts Of Insolvency
• Liquidated Claim
• Misappropriation Of Shares
• Director Liability
• Cross Border Insolvency

Sackstein NO v Proudfoot SA (Pty) Ltd (119/02)

Sackstein NO v Proudfoot SA (Pty) Ltd (119/02) [2003] ZASCA 8; [2003] 2 All SA 59 (SCA); 2003 (4) SA 348 (SCA) (7 March 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

119/02

Judges

Olivier, Brand, Conradie, Heher, Lewis

The SCA held that a South African liquidator of an external company may impeach foreign dispositions in South African court, even if the property is abroad.

• External Company Liquidation
• Impeachment Of Dispositions
• Jurisdiction Of Liquidator
• Companies Act Section 391
• Insolvency Act Section 29
• Cross Border Insolvency

Moolman v Builders & Developers (Pty) Ltd. (in Provisional Liquidation) (170/89)

Moolman v Builders & Developers (Pty) Ltd. (in Provisional Liquidation) (170/89) [1989] ZASCA 171; [1990] 2 All SA 77 (A) (1 December 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

170/89

Judges

J J F Hefer, Joubert, Hefer, Steyn, Kumleben, Friedman

The court held that a foreign liquidator may be recognised in South Africa to conduct an enquiry into a company’s affairs and interrogate witnesses, even where local assets are not yet identified.

• Recognition Of Foreign Liquidator
• Cross Border Insolvency
• Powers Of Liquidator
• Comity
• Interrogation Of Witnesses
• Recognition-of-foreign-liquidator