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
L. D. v M[...] P[...] I[...] (Pty) Ltd and Another (A132469/2023; A133154/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 193 (26 February 2025)
Appeals over derivative-action leave and company winding-up were decided separately: derivative relief was refused, but the company was finally wound up.
Erickson N.O. and Others v Kgatontle Satelite Operations (Pty) Ltd (26883/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 231 (11 April 2022)
The High Court refused business rescue and ordered final winding up of a company that was insolvent, dormant, and paralysed by director deadlock.
Ferreira v Swift-er (Pty) Ltd and Another (4565 /2019) [2019] ZALMPPHC 66 (12 December 2019)
The High Court ordered the final winding-up of a solvent company after finding an irretrievable breakdown in trust and management deadlock between equal directors/shareholders.
Safari Thatching Lowveld CC v Misty Mountain Trading 2 (Pty) Ltd (Jeroldi Intervening, Brink Intervening) (52115/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 832; 2016 (3) SA 209 (GP) (11 December 2015)
The court found that the Respondent was both factually and commercially insolvent, with numerous unpaid creditors and an unresolved deadlock between directors and shareholders. The Applicant had met all formal requirements for winding-up. Although a second business rescue application had been launched, no evidence was presented to show a reasonable prospect of rescue or that business rescue would be more beneficial to creditors than liquidation. The court held that, in circumstances where legal proceedings had already commenced prior to the business rescue application, it is legally competent…
Source excerpt
Navigator Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Silver Lakes Crossing Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (13049/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 103; [2014] 3 All SA 591 (WCC) (30 April 2014)
The court found that the directors of the first respondent were deadlocked, resulting in the inability to hold board meetings, approve financial statements, or make strategic decisions. The breakdown in relations between the applicant and the trust-appointed directors was irreparable, with threats of liquidation and refusal to cooperate. The shareholders' agreement provision purporting to exclude deadlock as a ground for winding up was declared pro non scripto, as it conflicted with statutory rights under the Companies Act. The court held that the company's registered office in Cape Town conf…
Source excerpt
Lidino Trading 580 CC v Cross Point Trading (Pty) Ltd , In re: Mabe v Cross Point Trading 215 (Pty) Ltd (2130/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 155 (23 August 2012)
The court refused business rescue and granted provisional liquidation, finding no workable rescue plan, no ongoing business, and a deadlock between the directors.
Explore more
