South Africa Case Law

Kriedmann and Another v One Vision Investments 139 (Pty) Ltd and Others (850/2018)

Kriedmann and Another v One Vision Investments 139 (Pty) Ltd and Others (850/2018) [2018] ZAECELLC 11 (13 December 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

850/2018

Judge

Roberson

The court found that the relationship between the directors and shareholders of One Vision Investments 139 (Pty) Ltd, all siblings, had irretrievably broken down, resulting in a lack of trust and confidence similar to a partnership dissolution. The evidence showed that communication between the directors was impossible, with no directors' meetings since 2014 and exclusion of one director from company affairs. The court accepted that the company operated as a quasi-partnership and that the breakdown of personal relations rendered it just and equitable to wind up the company. The court exercise…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Companies Act Section 81
• Quasi Partnership
• Director Deadlock
• Fiduciary Duty

Van Dyk v Adroit Communications (Pty) Ltd and Another (68048/2013)

Van Dyk v Adroit Communications (Pty) Ltd and Another (68048/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 376 (19 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

68048/2013

Judge

Nkosi

The High Court dismissed an urgent business rescue application, finding no proof that the company was financially distressed or that rescue was reasonably prospect.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 131
• Financial Distress
• Urgent Application
• Director Deadlock
• Business-rescue

Blue Cell (Pty) Ltd and Another v Blue Financial Services Limited and Others, Blue Cell Financial Services Limited v Blue Cell (Pty) Ltd (3489/07 , 8456/07)

Blue Cell (Pty) Ltd and Another v Blue Financial Services Limited and Others, Blue Cell Financial Services Limited v Blue Cell (Pty) Ltd (3489/07 , 8456/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 88 (9 May 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

3489/07 , 8456/07

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court dismissed a specific-performance application over company funding and ordered the first applicant finally wound up after finding deadlock and breakdown of trust.

• Shareholder Derivative Action
• Specific Performance
• Company Liquidation
• Director Deadlock
• Funding Obligation
• Abuse Of Process