L & P Plant Hire Bk en Andere v Bosch en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

L & P Plant Hire Bk en Andere v Bosch en Andere
2002 (2) SA 662 (SCA)

2002 (2) SA p662

Citation	2002 (2) SA 662 (SCA)
Case No	Saaknr 525/2000
Court	Hoogste Hof van Appèl
Judge	Vivier Wn AHR, Scott AR, Cloete Wn AR, Brand Wn AR en Nugent Wn AR
Heard	November 12, 2001
Judgment	November 29, 2001
Counsel	P Sieberhagen namens die appellante.; G J Strydom namens die respondente.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Beslote korporasie — Lede — Aanspreeklikheid vir skuld van beslote korporasie — Wet op Beslote Korporasies 69 van F 1984, art 64 — Uitleg van — Of in geval waar beslote korporasie skuldeiser se eis kan ontmoet, skuldeiser terselfdertyd eis kan instel teen persoon wat korporasie se sake op roekelose of grof nalatige wyse bedryf — Bedoeling van art 64, G afgesien van bedrog, is nie om mede-hoofskuldenaars met beslote korporasie te skep nie maar om skuldeisers te beskerm teen moontlike nadeel wat deur roekelose of grof nalatige bedryf van beslote korporasie se sake veroorsaak kan word — Artikel moet beperkend uitgelê word wat skuldeisers betref om slegs betrekking te hê op H gedrag wat 'n nadelige effek op skuldeiser se vordering teen beslote korporasie het — Waar beslote korporasie ten spyte van roekelose of grof nalatige bedryf van besigheid steeds skuldeiser se vordering kan ontmoet, kan skuldeiser nie ingevolge art 64 ageer nie — Blote vermoede van finansiële onvermoë aan kant van beslote korporasie nie voldoende vir toepassing van art 64 nie. I

Headnote : Kopnota

Artikel 64 van die Wet op Beslote Korporasies 69 van 1984 (die Wet) handel met die roekelose of grof nalatige dryf van die besigheid van beslote korporasies. 'n Vraag wat ontstaan is of art 64 so uitgelê moet word dat, ook in 'n geval waar 'n beslote korporasie 'n skuldeiser se eis kan ontmoet, die skuldeiser J

2002 (2) SA p663

terselfdertyd sy eis kan instel teen 'n persoon wat die korporasie se sake op roekelose of A grof nalatige wyse bedryf het. By oorweging van hierdie vraag moet dit in gedagte gehou word dat 'n skuldeiser, anders as 'n lid, se enigste belang by die bedryf van 'n geslote korporasie se besigheid geleë is in sy vordering teen die korporasie. Solank die korporasie die skuldeiser se vordering ten volle kan betaal het die skuldeiser geen belang in die wyse waarop die korporasie se besigheid bedryf word nie. (Paragraaf [39] op 677D/E - F.) B

As daar na die analoë bepalings in art 424 van die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973 gekyk word, blyk dit dat daar slegs na roekelose optrede en nie ook na grof nalatige optrede, soos in art 64 van die Wet, verwys word nie. 'Roekelose' optrede in art 424 van die Maatskappywet word egter uitgelê om ook 'growwe nalatigheid' in te sluit. Wanneer daar dus van art 424 van die Maatskappywet gesê word dat dit gedrag omhels wat 'n gebrek aan werklike besorgdheid vir die vooruitgang van die C maatskappy aantoon, kan sulke siening ook as korrek aanvaar word wat 'grof nalatige optrede' in art 64 van die Wet betref. (Paragraaf [39] op 677F - H/I.)

Wat skuldeisers betref is die bedoeling van art 64 van die Wet, afgesien van moontlike bedrog, nie om vir hulle mede-hoofskuldenaars met die beslote korporasie te skep nie. Die bedoeling is om hulle te beskerm teen die nadeel wat die roekelose of grof nalatige bedryf van D 'n beslote korporasie se sake vir hulle mag meebring. Artikel 64 moet dus, wat skuldeisers betref, beperkend uitgelê word om slegs betrekking te hê op 'roekelose' of 'grof nalatige' bedryf van die beslote korporasie se besigheid wat 'n nadelige effek op die skuldeiser se vordering teen die beslote korporasie het. Waar die beslote korporasie ten spyte van roekelose of grof nalatige bedryf van sy besigheid steeds die skuldeiser se vordering kan ontmoet, kan die E skuldeiser nie ingevolge art 64 ageer nie. Die blote vermoede van finansiële onvermoë aan die kant van die beslote korporasie is nie voldoende vir toepassing van art 64 nie. (Paragrawe [39] en [40] op 677J - 678B/C en 678D/E - E.)

Die beslissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling in Bosch en Andere v L & P Plant Hire BK en Andere deels bevestig, deels omvergewerp. F

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Close corporation — Members — Liability for debts of close corporation — Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, s 64 — Interpretation of — Whether, in event of close corporation being able to meet creditor's claim, creditor can simultaneously institute claim against person conducting business of close corporation in reckless or grossly G negligent manner — Aim of s 64 is, apart from fraud, not to create co-principal debtors along with closed corporation but to protect creditors against possible prejudice created by reckless or grossly negligent conduct of business of close corporation — Section to be interpreted restrictively as far as creditors concerned to apply only to conduct having negative effect on creditor's claim against corporation — Where corporation, in spite of reckless or grossly negligent conduct of business, still able to meet creditor's claim, H creditor cannot proceed in terms of s 64 — Mere suspicion of financial incapability on part of close corporation not sufficient for application of s 64.

Headnote : Kopnota

Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984 (the Act) deals with the reckless or grossly negligent conduct of the business of close I corporations. A question which arises is whether s 64 can be interpreted to mean that, in the event of the close corporation being able to meet a creditor's claim, the creditor can simultaneously institute a claim against the person conducting the business of the close corporation in a reckless or grossly negligent manner. In the consideration of this question it has to be remembered that J

2002 (2) SA p664

a creditor's only concern in the conduct of the business of the close A corporation is, unlike a member's, concentrated in his claim against the corporation. As long as the corporation can settle the creditor's claim in full, the creditor has no interest in the manner in which the corporation's business is conducted. (Paragraph [39] at 677D/E - F.)

If the similar provisions in s 424 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 are examined, it appears that reference is made to reckless conduct alone and not also to grossly negligent conduct as in s 64 of the Act. B 'Reckless' conduct in s 424 of the Companies Act has, however, been interpreted to include 'gross negligence'. When s 424 of the Companies Act is therefore said to include conduct which evinces a lack of genuine concern for the prosperity of the company, such view can also be accepted as correct with regard to 'grossly negligent conduct' in s 64 of the Act. (Paragraph [39] at 677F - H/I.) C

With regard to creditors the aim of s 64 of the Act is, apart from possible fraud, not to create co-principal debtors with the closed corporation for them to proceed against. The aim is to protect creditors against the possible prejudice created by the reckless or grossly negligent conduct of the business of a close corporation. Section 64 therefore has, as far as creditors are concerned, to be interpreted restrictively to apply exclusively to the 'reckless' or D 'grossly negligent' conduct of the business of a close corporation which has a negative effect on the creditor's claim against that close corporation. Where the close corporation can, in spite of the reckless or grossly negligent conduct of its business, still meet the creditor's claim, the creditor cannot proceed in terms of s 64. The mere suspicion of financial incapability on the part of the close corporation was further not sufficient for the application of s 64. E (Paragraphs [39] and [40] at 677J - 678B/C and 678D/E - E.)

The decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division in Bosch en Andere v L & P Plant Hire BK en Andere confirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cases Considered

Annotations

Gerapporteerde sake/Reported cases F

Thoroughbred Breeders' Association v Price Waterhouse 2001 (4) SA 551 (HHA): vergelyk/compared

Statutes Considered

Wette/Statutes

Die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973/The Companies Act 61 of 1973, art/s 424: sien/see Juta's Statutes of South G Africa 2000 vol 2 op/at 1-219

Die Wet op Beslote Korporasies 69 van 1984/The Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, art/s 64: sien/see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2000 vol 2 op/at 1-299.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling (Willis R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Brand Wn AR. H

P Sieberhagen namens die appellante.

G J Strydom namens die respondente.

Benewens die gesag in die uitspraak van die Hof aangehaal, het die advokate vir die partye na die volgende gesag verwys/In addition to the authorities referred to in the judgment of the Court, counsel for I the parties referred to the following:

Administrator, Orange Free State, and Others v Mokopanele and Another 1990 (3) SA 780 (A) op/at 787G - 788H

Aetiology Today CC v Van Aswegen 1992 (1) SA 807 (W) op/at 810G J

2002 (2) SA p665

Anderson and Others v Dickson and Another NNO (Intermenua (Pty) Ltd Intervening) 1985 (1) SA 93 (N) op/at 110 A

Attorney-General, Transvaal v Kader 1991 (4) SA 727 (A) op/at 739F - 740C

Bailes v Highveld 7 Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others 1998 (4) SA 42 (N) op/at 50I - 51I B

Banco de Mocambique v Inter-Signs Research and Development Services (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3) SA 330 (T)

Barclays Bank International v African Diamond Exporters (Pty) Ltd 1976 (1) SA 93 (W) op/at96A - C

Barnard v Celliers 1929 EDL 106 op/at 112

Basil Read Sunhomes (Pty) Ltd v Nedperm Bank Ltd 1999 (1) SA 831 (HHA) op/at 839C - 840A, 841B, 841E C

Bowman NO v Sacks and Others 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)

Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 790 (A) op/at 804D

Cole v Stuart 1940 AD 399 op/at 408 D

...