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
Motor Vessel 'Falcon Confidence' and Another v Nadella Corporation (AC5/19) [2019] ZAWCHC 171 (13 December 2019)
The court refused to set aside the arrest of mv Falcon Confidence and allowed a P&I Club letter of undertaking to replace a bank guarantee as security.
Motor Vessel "Asturcon" and Others v Afriline Denizcilik Veg Emi Kiralama Ltd and Another (AC11/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 160 (2 September 2015)
The court held that the order setting aside the arrest of the vessel is a negative order, not susceptible to execution, and therefore not suspended by the pending appeal under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act and Uniform Rule 49(11). The LOU was furnished solely to secure the release of the vessel and to create a deemed arrest; its rationale falls away once the arrest is set aside. The maintenance costs of the LOU justify the urgency of the application. The court found Afriline's opposition not unreasonable enough to warrant attorney-and-client costs but ordered the return of the LOU…
Source excerpt
Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd v Capewinds Trading 33 CC (A45/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 50 (26 September 2013)
The High Court held that a letter of undertaking counted as security against attachment, but still declined admiralty jurisdiction because Singapore was the agreed forum.
MV 'Ivory Tirupati' and Another v Badan Urusan Logistik (513/01) [2002] ZASCA 155; [2003] 1 All SA 55 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 104 (SCA) (29 November 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim based on the Hong Kong judgment was not the same as the original cargo claim for which the 'Amer Prabha' was arrested. The judgment created a new and independent cause of action, requiring proof of additional facts such as the competence and conclusiveness of the foreign judgment. Therefore, the arrest of the first appellant was not precluded by sections 3(6) and 3(8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The letter of undertaking was construed as covering only the cargo claim and not the enforcement of the judgment. The respondent was e…
Source excerpt
Explore more
