Courtesy of LexisNexis Case Law

REMOVAL OF BUSINESS RESCUE PRACTITIONERS

Knoop and Another NNO v Gupta (No 2) (Case No 116/2020) [2020] ZASCA 163 (9 December 2020)

The judgment can be found here: Knoop.pdf

Wallis JA considers an appeal against a High Court order removing business rescue practitioners. The judgment discusses the backround; the Companies Act; the grounds for removal of the practitioners; the business rescue plans; the complaints; the prospects of business rescue succeeding; and the barrage of litigation.

The appeal is upheld and the order of the High Court set aside.

Noteworthy is para [145] on emotive terms in the affidavits, including:
“It should not be necessary to remind legal professionals who draft affidavits for their clients that they bear a responsibility for the contents of those documents and may not use them for the purpose of abusing their client’s opponents.”

MONEY COLLECTED PRIOR TO BUSINESS RESCUE

SA Airlink v SAA (SOC) Limited and Others (238/2020) [2020] ZASCA 156 (30 November 2020)

The judgment can be found here: Airlink.pdf

Airlink and SAA operated in alliance, founded on an Alliance Agreement, with Airlink passengers using SAA’s booking system and SAA periodically paying over to Airlink the ticket money, less commission and charges. Airlink was unsuccessful in the High Court, where it sought an order to be paid for the tickets sales in the period prior to SAA being placed under business rescue.

On appeal, Dambuza JA discusses whether the business relationship was one of agency; whether the debt arose after business rescue; and the moratorium on legal proceedings against companies during business rescue – s 133 of the Companies Act.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.