South Africa Case Law

Ragavan and Others v Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Ltd and Others (136/2022)

Ragavan and Others v Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Ltd and Others (136/2022) [2023] ZASCA 34; 2023 (4) SA 78 (SCA) (31 March 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

136/2022

Judges

Van der Merwe, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Molefe, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, under Chapter 6 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, business rescue practitioners are vested with full management control over the company, including its property and assets, in substitution for the board of directors. This control encompasses the right to vote as a creditor on the business rescue plan of a debtor company. The court found that the ordinary meaning of 'full management control' includes decisions over the company's property, such as voting on a debtor's plan, which directly affects the company's assets and prospects of rescue. The appellants'…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Creditor Voting Rights
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Management Control
• Interpretation Of Statutes

Ragavan and Others v Klopper N.O. and Others (12897/2018)

Ragavan and Others v Klopper N.O. and Others (12897/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 230 (3 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12897/2018

Judges

M Tsoka, S Weiner, J Teffo

On an urgent section 18 appeal, the High Court refused leave to appeal against execution of an access order so business rescue practitioners could perform their duties.

• Business Rescue
• Section 18 Execution
• Irreparable Harm
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Non Joinder
• Management Control

Bellville Apteek BK and Another v Nortje (PTY) Limited and Others (9462/02)

Bellville Apteek BK and Another v Nortje (PTY) Limited and Others (9462/02) [2003] ZAWCHC 8; [2003] 2 All SA 68 (C); 2004 (6) SA 442 (C) (13 March 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9462/02

Judge

Davis

The court found that applicants failed to establish locus standi, as they did not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest or actual financial harm resulting from respondents' conduct. The evidence did not support the contention that first and second respondents used HealthPharm or Pick 'n Pay branding as an unauthorised trading title; the registered trading title 'Parow Family Pharmacy' was used in business dealings and promotional materials. The franchise and supply agreements did not result in a disposal of interest or shareholding to Pick 'n Pay, nor did they divest managerial contro…

Source excerpt

• Pharmacy Act Compliance
• Franchise Agreements
• Trading Title Authorisation
• Management Control
• Unlawful Competition