A company in liquidation appealed against a decision that its claim against the directors, for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty in relation to distribution in specie of the claimant company’s shareholding in another company, was time-barred.
Sometimes different bits of legislation are, on the face of it, in conflict with each other. This is specially so when new law is introduced. The impact of new law on old law sets up contradictions, which the courts have to sort out. An interesting recent example arose in the context of business rescue.
The issue in this case was whether a payment of R389 593.49 by Ditona – a company being wound-up – to another company Eravin, was recoverable by Ditona’s liquidators as a void disposition or unrecoverable because, it was a pre-business rescue debt, which may not be enforced.
A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.
This Week's Caselaw
Essar v Norscot: Court confirms that arbitrators can award the costs of litigation funding/time limits for challenging a corrected award
On 21 September 2016, the Western Cape High Court (Court) handed down judgement in the case of Tyre Corporation Cape Town (Pty) Ltd and Others v GT Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Others (Rogers J) [2016] ZAWCHC 124 in terms of which the Court considered, among other questions, the following:
The fact that the receiver appointed for Hanjin, Mr Tai-Soo Suk, quickly took steps to extend to the UK the protection afforded by the Korean rehabilitation proceedings, was of little surprise, as England is likely to be the forum where the majority of creditors will have to bring proceedings to recover debts or claim damages for breach of contract.
The U.A.E and Republic of South Korea have not entered into a bi-lateral treaty under which they are obliged to recognise each other's court orders or judgments. The U.A.E rarely recognises/enforces the judgment of foreign courts where there is no such treaty in place
The collapse of Hanjin, the world's seventh largest shipping container carrier, and its immediate impact in South Africa and its shipping industry, remains to be seen. As far as we can ascertain, there has been no attempt to date to apply to a South African Court for the recognition of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings.
On 2 September 2016, Hanjin filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking recognition of its Korean rehabilitation proceedings as a "foreign main proceeding." Hanjin also sought provisional and final relief to prevent creditors from taking enforcement actions against Hanjin's interests within the jurisdiction of the United States.
In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of Hanjin's Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.
The effect of Hanjin's Korean rehabilitation proceedings in France has been rather limited.