Pressma Services v Schuttler (original) (raw)
Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent. The court found, in respect of the liability of directors and officers of a company for its debts, that the object sought to be achieved by section 424(1) of the Companies Act was twofold: 1. * to render personally liable all persons who knowingly participated in the fraudulent or reckless conduct of the business of a company; and 2. * to provide creditors with a meaningful remedy against the abuses at which section was aimed. The rights conferred on creditors by section 424(1) did not cease to exist, the court found, upon the sanctioning and implementation of an offer of compromise in terms of section 311. The words "creditor [...] of the company" in section 424(1) were to be construed as including person in respect of whom there had been an existing indebtedness at the time when the compromise was sanctioned. The court found additionally that, when disputes which had arisen such as would give rise to a variety of wide-ranging and substantial factual enquiries, the procedure under Rule 6(5)(g) of the Uniform Rules of Court was not appropriate. It was more appropriate to order the parties to trial. The affidavits in this case were not lengthy; they contained all the necessary averments and defined the issues with sufficient clarity. It would have been pointless, therefore, to order a filing of pleadings. The court, to save time and further expense, ordered the affidavits to stand as pleadings which were closed. (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 39270348 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 8847 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1061620821 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Provisional_liquidation dbr:Creditor dbr:Creditors'_rights dbr:Liquidation dbr:Companies_Act dbr:Fraud dbc:1989_in_South_African_law dbc:1989_in_case_law dbr:Ipso_jure dbr:Evidence_(law) dbc:Western_Cape_Division_cases dbr:Affidavit dbr:South_African_labour_law dbr:Motion_in_limine dbr:South_African_Law_Reports dbr:South_African_company_law dbr:South_African_civil_procedure dbr:Indebtedness dbr:Cape_Provincial_Division |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:EngvarB dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_dmy_dates |
| dct:subject | dbc:1989_in_South_African_law dbc:1989_in_case_law dbc:Western_Cape_Division_cases |
| gold:hypernym | dbr:Case |
| rdf:type | yago:WikicatWesternCapeDivisionCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment | Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent. (en) |
| rdfs:label | Pressma Services v Schuttler (en) |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:Pressma Services v Schuttler yago-res:Pressma Services v Schuttler wikidata:Pressma Services v Schuttler https://global.dbpedia.org/id/fuJC |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:Pressma_Services_v_Schuttler?oldid=1061620821&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:Pressma_Services_v_Schuttler |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:Pressma_Services_(Pty)_Ltd_v_Schuttler_and_Another dbr:Pressma_Services_Ltd_v_Schuttler |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:Pressma_Services_(Pty)_Ltd_v_Schuttler_and_Another dbr:Pressma_Services_Ltd_v_Schuttler |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:Pressma_Services_v_Schuttler |