High Court / Arbitration litigation

We litigate in High Court / Arbitration type litigation, generally with an emphasis on Application type proceedings. Our three main areas of litigation focus are Commerical, Delictual / Tort, and White collar type crime.

Commercial including

• Sequestration / Insolvency / Enquiries
• Liquidation / Winding Up / Enquiries
• Lease / Lien / Landlord hypothec
• Interdictory relief
• Spoliatory relief
• Urgent Application
• Matrimonial
• Setting aside of commercial agreements, search and seizure documents, subpoenas
• Property related relief
• Anton Pillar type application / Supervising Attorney
• Restraint of Trade
• Deceased estate and Trust related relief
• Copyright, brand name type, patent type infringements
• Anti dissipation / Maraeva type interdictory relief
• Freezing of bank accounts

Delictual / Tort including

• Defamation
• Unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution
• Unlawful interference with business interests

White collar type crime including

• Fraud
• Money laundering
• SARS, Income tax and Custom related
• Statutory- Firearm and related type crimes
• Setting aside of police issued search and seizure warrants, arrest warrants and subpoenas

---

Reported judgments

• Turner judgment. A father applied under the provisions of the Children's Act to set aside an adoption order 6 years after it was granted and after the statutory period of 2 years to set aside such order had lapsed. This is the first judgment of its kind in South Africa.
• The AST judgment was an application to windup a Close Corporation which was successfully opposed on the basis that the Applicant was neither a shareholder, director nor creditor.
• In the Wheels matter this was an application to restore possession of a gate in a factory where the landlord was acting unlawfully and resorted to "self help". A spoliatory order was granted re-instating the premises. The landlord who was the Respondent in this matter subsequently became a client.
• The Van Niekerk dispute was a father and son dispute and led to an Anton Pillar type application for a search and seizure warrant and preservation order.
• In Bock and other we represented one of the Respondents' in an application to release certain sureties and to give effect to an execution and attachment.
• TMT vs. Wessel and Watson - Interpretation of contract to give it business efficacy.
• Extel & Crown Mills - This case is proof of the age old adage that bribery does not pay.
• Liberty Life and Katsapas - This was an application to stop a third party from defaming a company.
• SweeCo and 2 Others vs Erdmann and 8 Others - This matter pertained to ownership in and to certain moulds.
• SweeCo vs. Max Erdmann - This was an Anton Pillar type application to search and seize for various moulds to found a claim for damages.
• Benson & Hedges - lose infringement and unlawful completion in an attempt to prevent a small trader from using their name
• Blumenthal vs. CoJ - Rescission of judgment - The Johannesburg City applied to have a judgment rescinded in circumstances where they allowed a judgment to be taken against them
• Merchant West v Sizwe - This matter was a reconsideration of an Anton Pillar type application, where we were the "supervising attorneys" The order previously granted was set aside on the basis that the search for various words was too wide in scope
• Quits Aviation v Empiric and 2 others - This matter is one of a trilogy of matters. The matter started off as an ex parte attachment order to attach certain goods to found jurisdiction in respect of an overseas based entity. After the order was granted, the respondent applied for a reconsideration of such order which was granted and the attachment was set aside. Such set aside order is currently the subject matter of a pending appeal. After the appeal was noted, the applicant launched an application for commital of the applicant company and its directors for contempt of court in failing to return the goods and simultaneously applied for return of such goods. The commital order was refused but the court ordered return of the goods. The rationale of such order was that in as much as the original order for attachment was set aside, there was no pending lis and the goods had to be returned.
• Empiric Judgement. This is the 2nd judgment in the series of 3 and is a judgment in respect of the reconsideration of an order sought to attach goods to found jurisdiction which was set aside due to incomplete disclosures
• TTE v ACSA - The Applicant initially obtained a committal order against ACSA for breach of a court order, in respect of a tender awarded to them at OT International Airport in Johannesburg. On the return date of the Order, the Applicant launched an application to join a 3rd party and applied the a postponement of the matter, pending the joinder of such 3rd party, which postponement was refused and is now the subject matter of an application for leave to appeal
• TTE v ACSA Appeal - This is an appeal judgment in respect of a contempt application where the Appeal Court found that by amending their papers the Applicant was no longer entitled to obtain a jail sentence. This is another round in the saga of the parties where further litigation is still pending.
• Overrox v Pan African Shopfitters - The Plaintiff claimed payment in respect of demurrage costs which it was unable to prove due to lack of documentary evidence, coupled with the fact that its case was predicated upon a “facilitation fee”, which was nothing more than a bribe, which was not countenance by the Court. A case referred to was the Extel matter referred to above where we were on the losing side in that matter. The circle has now been completed in this case.
• ACSA v TSWELOKGOTSO - ACSA sought to review its own tender documents based on an irregularity committed by itself. The basis of the review initially was in terms of PAJA, but this ground was conceded based upon a recent CC judgment and ACSA was then constrained to unsuccessfully arguing in terms of the doctrine of legality. Short shift was made of this argument and the application was dismissed with costs.
• Nonyane N. O. v Kotzen and others - This matter revolves around the interpretation of S341 of the Company Act and the disposal of shares after the company was in provisional liquidation and prior to a final order being obtained. The judgment is currently the subject matter of an application for leave to appeal.
• FNB v Cooper and others - This matter pertained to a search order issued in terms of the Insolvency Act, and the powers of a Trustee.
• JPS Nominees v Binstock - A sequestration order was sought against Israeli citizens. At the hearing of the application the matter was referred to trial and an issue arose as to whether there was a consent to jurisdiction or not.
• Acar v Pierce and others - This matter was heard as a group and pertained to the status of parties married in community of property in respect of a sequestration order.
• Botha v Van Niekerk - sale of a property whereby the Purchaser nominated a 3rd party to be the Purchaser. When court will lift corporate veil.
• Quits v Empiric - this is the 3rd judgment in the trilogy and is one for contempt of court, in circumstances where the Respondent applied for leave to appeal against the setting aside of an interim order that had been reconsidered and set aside. The effect of which is that there is nothing to suspend.
• Cooke v Thermo Facade - Summons was issued and the Defendant qua excipient contended that the papers were excipiable, and were vague and embarrassing. Short shift was made of this argument.
• Alpine Ecotech v Capital Acceptances - The Applicant launched an application for return of such equipment that had been attached by a 3rd party. The Applicant was non suited due to a dispute of fact pertaining to ownership which is now the subject matter of an application for leave to appeal in that the matter ought to have been referred to evidence or trial.
• Maragela v LSC Civils and 2 - This is a culmination of a trial action where judgment was granted by default due to the Defendant failing to discover. Such defendant applied for leave to appeal which was refused and after a petition to the SCA leave to appeal was granted. The Defendant qua applicant did not prosecute its appeal timeously and in terms of Rule 49(6) such appeal was "deemed lapsed". A warrant was issued and an attachment made whereafter such Applicant launched an urgent applicant for a stay and set aside, which application was set aside in terms of this judgment. The matter subsequently settled in terms of a written settlement agreement. This judgment is to be read in relation to the Mashile J judgment of dismissal.
• Tensile v Rema - This was an opposed winding up application that was granted and is now the subject matter of an appeal
• Tshepang v Mokgolokwane - This was an opposed liquidation application, where a provisional liquidation order was granted. This was the 2nd round in the saga of the parties where the 1st round was lost due to lack of urgency.
• Fellinger v Cox et al - This was an opposed, disputed eviction application, where the Applicant was successful in obtaining the order sought.
• TTE v ACSA - This was an opposed amendment application where ACSA wished to amend the particulars of claim which was opposed based on prescription and various ancillary issues.
• PHPM Roussous Opposed SJ - This was an opposed summary judgment predicated upon the PROCSA agreement, where the Defendant was granted leave to defend.
• Honeysilk v 360 ABL - This was a jurisdictional related appeal and is one matter in a series of litigious matters between the same parties.
• Dissilio v Nedbank - This was a trial action where the Plaintiff sought an interpretation of banking documents and were successful in their claim for a repayment of a breakage or early termination fee. Another issue that arose was in respect of an amendment to include the breakage fee. The Defendant contended that the claim had prescribed and the Plaintiff contended for a dies non period of the Xmas break to rebut such contention.
• Summary judgment and the new rules pertaining to engaging with the Defendants Plea
• De Vries // Symes N.O. This judgment was launched by the liquidators to obtain payment under the auspices of S341(2) of the Co Act to recover funds from a 3rd party paid out between the period that an application was launched for the liquidation of the Co and the time when it went into provisional liquidation in circumstances where the court has a discretion to order repayment or otherwise. Needless to say the matter is currently on appeal.
  • Leave to appeal granted to the SCA when an attorney was ordered to refund monies paid to procure bail for her client.
• Vonopartis v Dharamraj This was a monetary claim predicated upon a breached sale agreement, where after filing papers the respondents legal time withdrew bit not before raisin various disputes including an Arbitration clause which was inapplicable due to the fact that the Applicants claim was for a liquidated amount and that there was no dispute.
• ZETHU CONSULTING SERVICES (PTY) LTD v EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS - The Applicant claimed monies owed pursuant to a Municipality related tender that was flawed due to irregularities and the Court upheld the Municipalities counterclaim and reviewed and set aside such agreement and awarded a partial refund of monies paid to the contractor.
• Security for costs - a judgment where the Judge exercised his discretion in refusing to grant security

---

Commercial Agreements

• Registration of companies
• Registration of Trustss
• Drafting of Wills
• Deceased estate related issuess
• Lease agreementss
• Sale/Purchase related property agreementss
• Sale/Purchase of related businessess
• Franchise related agreements
• Distributorship related agreements
• General company related agreement
• Conveyancing and property related matters

---

International Experiences

We have litigated in 3 separate American related jurisdictions, namely

• Richmond, Virginia
• Tampa, Florida
• Chicago, Cook County
• We have Arbitrated in Mauritius
• We have been involved in litigation in England, Frankfort, Munich and Holland (where we have used the services of corresponding attorneys)
• We have personal appearances in various Arbitration Tribunals throughout South Africa, and have likewise appeared in numerous High Courts in South Africa

---

Commissions of Enquiry

• We set up the SARFU Rugby related Commission on behalf of the ex SARFU President
• We successfully represented one of the key players in the initial Arms related Commission of Enquiry

---

Statutory PAIA Manual

• Beder-Friedland Attorneys Inc PAIA Sec 51 Manual

Contact Us!