Professional Update
A
monthly newsletter for KZN Attorneys from the Kwazulu-Natal Law Society

17 July 2009

This professional service draws attention to current and important items of news
 and members are directed to the hosts' websites

InfoUpdate 15 of 2009
Recent Judgments

Electronic copies of this information may be obtained from our librarians at help@lawlibrary.co.za or click on the underlined hyperlink where relevant

Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa - http://www.supremecourtofappeal.gov.za/index.html ; wwwserver.law.wits.ac.za/sca/index.php ; http://www.uovs.ac.za/apps/law/appeal/ ; http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/

17 July 2009
325/08 [2009] ZASCA 81
Cronje v Hillcrest Village
Section 420 of
Companies Act 61 of 1973 – application to avoid dissolution of liquidated company - unlikelihood of avoidance yielding a financial benefit to applicant, inaction and delay on the part of applicant factors to be taken into account in exercise of court's discretion

According to section 420 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, "when a company has been dissolved, the court may at any time on an application by the liquidator of the company, or by any other person who appears to the Court to have an interest, make an order", declaring the dissolution to be void. Any proceedings may thereafter be taken against company, as though the company had not been dissolved.

In the court a quo, (Pretoria High Court, now known as North Gauteng High Court), Mavundla J declared the dissolution of Waterkloofspruit Projects (Pty) Ltd "to have been void". This decision was taken on appeal in the matter of Cronje NO & others v Hillcrest Village (Pty) Ltd & another [2009] JOL 23905 (SCA).

In a judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal this morning, the court dealt with this application to avoid the dissolution of the liquidated company.

The following two factors, among others, were taken into account by the court in the exercise of its discretion :

1. The unlikelihood of avoidance yielding a financial benefit to the applicant ;
2. Inaction and delay on the part of the applicant.

The court also examined section 31(1), and section 82(1) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 as well as section 340 of the Companies Act in its decision.

Source : LexisNexis

 

InfoUpdate : an Information Service supplied by the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society