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
Bekker v F.J.L.R and Another (1445/2020) [2025] ZAMPMHC 19 (27 January 2025)
The court held that a divorce liquidator had not fully completed his mandate, but was still entitled to reasonable remuneration taxed by the Master.
Tuhf Limited v Master of the High Court Bloemfontein and Others (337/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 258 (4 July 2023)
The court found that the Master's directive allowing a 10% fee for the sale of the property as a going concern was arbitrary and unsupported by adequate reasons. The property was not sold as a going concern, as it was not advertised or agreed to be sold as such, and the sale agreement did not include transfer of business assets or goodwill. The majority of tenants were non-paying or illegal occupants, and the property generated insufficient income to sustain a business. The correct tariff for liquidator remuneration was 3% for the sale of immovable property, subject to the Master's discretion…
Source excerpt
Master of the High Court, Cape Town v Gore N.O and Others (18748/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 119 (25 May 2023)
The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for its default, covering the entire period of inaction. The explanation included departmental protocols, IT disruptions, staff quarantine, and health complications. The applicant demonstrated a bona fide intention to oppose the review, particularly regarding costs and the merits of the special fee application. The court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the respondents, finding that the circumstances did not amount to inexcusable inefficiency. The applicant satisfied both requirements for res…
Source excerpt
Moodliar and Others v Recycling and Economic Initiative of South Africa NPC and Others; Gore and Others v Kusaga Taka Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others (977/2019) [2020] ZASCA 101; 2020 (6) SA 386 (SCA) (15 September 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that liquidators are not entitled to retain company assets to secure or pay their proposed fees before the estate account has been taxed and confirmed. Upon discharge of the provisional liquidation order, all assets, including funds earmarked for liquidator remuneration, must be restored to the company. The Companies Act 61 of 1973 and its Regulations do not permit liquidators to retain or appropriate assets for their fees prior to confirmation of the estate account. The authorities cited by the liquidators do not support their position; rather, they reinforce…
Source excerpt
Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Moodliar and Others Kusaga Taka Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gore and Others (2688/2019 & 5500/2019; 2687/2019 & 5499/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 110; [2019] 4 All SA 812 (WCC); 2020 (1) SA 632 (WCC) (26 June 2019)
The court held that liquidators are not entitled to retain company funds for their fees pending taxation or agreement by the Master. Upon discharge from liquidation, liquidators must immediately deliver all assets to the company or its directors, and have no lien or security over company assets for their remuneration. The Fourth Respondent does not hold the funds as a stakeholder, as there was no competing claim or clear tripartite agreement. The transfer of funds to the attorneys' trust account did not contravene section 394(1) of the Companies Act 1973, as the funds were invested in an inte…
Source excerpt
Engelbrecht NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Pretoria (55163/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 5 (18 January 2017)
The court found that the Master had incorrectly applied the 3% tariff under Item 2 of Tariff B to the applicants' remuneration, as the assets sold comprised both movable and immovable property, as well as other rights and interests. The directive was set aside. However, the court declined to order that the applicants' fees be taxed at 10% under Item 1 of Tariff B, holding that the sale assets fell into distinct categories under the tariff and that it was necessary for the Master to exercise discretion in determining reasonable remuneration. The matter was referred back to the Master for prope…
Source excerpt
Bester NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth (1558/2012) [2013] ZAECPEHC 25 (7 May 2013)
The court held that the applicants, as joint liquidators, were entitled to claim remuneration for assets sold and proceeds collected, as prescribed by tariff B under the Insolvency Act and Companies Act. The Master was required to tax their fees in accordance with the tariff once the proceeds were received, regardless of whether a claim had been proved by a secured creditor. There was no legal basis in the Companies Act, Insolvency Act, or regulations to exclude proceeds from taxation until a claim was proved. The Master's decision to reduce the applicants' fees to nil was materially influenc…
Source excerpt
T.L.E. (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, South Gauteng High Court and Others (2011/21387) [2011] ZAGPJHC 238; 2012 (2) SA 502 (GSJ) (22 November 2011)
The court found that regulation CM101(5), which permits the Master to authorise provisional payment of liquidator remuneration before account confirmation, is ultra vires the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The Act provides a transparent process for liquidation and distribution accounts, including inspection and objection rights for creditors, which regulation CM101(5) circumvents. The court held that such a significant payment to liquidators without creditor notification or opportunity to object undermines statutory protections and cannot be justified by subordinate legislation. Even if the regula…
Source excerpt
Strydom NO v Master of the High Court and Another (38006/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 164; 2010 (6) SA 630 (GNP) (15 October 2010)
High Court review of the Master’s refusal to approve provisional liquidators’ fees was dismissed because fees should not be paid before confirmation.
Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (21080/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 22; [2010] 3 All SA 182 (WCC) (19 February 2010)
High Court review setting aside the Master’s refusal to exceed tariff remuneration for a liquidator, adopting a referee’s report and awarding punitive costs.
Explore more
