Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Murray J |
Judgment Date | 29 April 1948 |
Hearing Date | 20 April 1948 |
Court | Witwatersrand Local Division |
Murray, J.:
The present application is one for an order placing the respondent company under compulsory liquidation on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company be wound up inasmuch as a complete deadlock has arisen between the only two directors and shareholders of the company, viz. the applicant and one Arthur Richards. There are in the main two grounds upon which the applicant rests his case: (a) That owing to the commission of adultery by Richards with applicant's wife the continued association of himself and Richards in the conduct of the business of the company has become impossible; (b) that the
Murray J
business of the company has become dormant; its assets total £1,025 and its liabilities £1,195 (including a claim of £1,175 due to the applicant); it has no means of satisfying such excess of liabilities over assets and is in fact insolvent.
At the present moment I am concerned only with the first of these two grounds, which has been argued before me by counsel on both sides. The second ground, as also the admissibility of certain replying affidavit tendered by Richards, has not yet been argued.
In regard to the first ground it is admitted by Richards, who is opposing the order for liquidation asked for, that about October, 1947, the applicant left the Union for a visit overseas and during his absence Richards, as managing director of the respondent company, was in sole control thereof; during such period Richards was also an employee of Windsor Motors (Pty.) Ltd., another business controlled by the applicant, having been appointed as such employee by applicant in or about May, 1946. It is also admitted that after applicant's return Richards on 8th February, 1948, admitted to applicant in the presence of their respective wives that he, Richards, had twice committed adultery with Mrs. Lawrence, the applicant's wife, during the week ending 23rd December, 1947. Richards also states that the applicant thereupon stated that unless Richards left Johannesburg, he, the applicant, would shoot him and if Richards set foot on the premises of either business he would do so at his own peril. On 9th February Richards was summarily dismissed by the applicant from his employment at Windsor Motors Ltd.; in respect of such dismissal Richards has threatened action for damages. Richards also admits that after 8th February he remained away from the respondent company's business until 1st March when he proceeded there and has since maintained his rights to be and conduct business there.
Counsel for Richards has conceded that if the present were a case of partnership in its ordinary sense the commission by one partner of adultery with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Identifying the missing link in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A case for innovative approach to handling solvent companies overwhelmed by deadlock
...Tobacco Co Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 426 (CA) at 430; Marshall v Marshall (Pty) Ltd 1954 (3) SA 571 (N); Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W).22 Omar v Inhouse Venue Technical Management (Pty) Ltd 2015 (3) SA 146 (WCC). © Juta and Company (Pty) IDENTIFYING THE MISSING LINK IN SECT......
-
Statutêre minderheidsbeskerming in Suid-Afrika. Hoofstuk 5
...daar nie noodwendig na ’n “quasi-partnership company” verwysword nie. Sien in hierdie verband bv Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty)Ltd 1948 2 SA 1029 (W) 1033; Moosa v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd19673 SA 131 (T) 139; Erasmus v Pentamed Investments (Pty) Ltd 1982 1 SA178 (W) 187-188; Super Safes (P......
-
Advancing the Statutory Remedy for Unfair Prejudice in South African Company Law: Perspectives from International Jurisprudence
...Companies Act, 1973.9See City Crushers Ltd v Central Crusher Supplies Ltd 1933 TPD 111 at 116; Lawrence vLawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W); Taylor v Welkom Theatres (Pty) Ltd & others1954 (3) SA 339 (O) 350; Aspek Pipe Co (Pty) Ltd & another v Mauerberger & others 1968 (1)SA 517......
-
Knipe and Others v Kameelhoek (Pty) Ltd and Another
...v Northern Cape Manganese Company (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] 4 All SA 203 (GSJ): referred to I Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W): dictum at 1032 applied Louw and Others v Nel 2011 (2) SA 172 (SCA) ([2010] ZASCA 161): applied Moosa NO v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd and Ano......
-
Knipe and Others v Kameelhoek (Pty) Ltd and Another
...v Northern Cape Manganese Company (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] 4 All SA 203 (GSJ): referred to I Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W): dictum at 1032 applied Louw and Others v Nel 2011 (2) SA 172 (SCA) ([2010] ZASCA 161): applied Moosa NO v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd and Ano......
-
Tjospomie Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Drakensberg Botteliers (Pty) Ltd and Another
...Ltd 1923 CPD 458 at 463; Ronaasen and Others v Ronaasen and Morgan (Pty) Ltd 1935 CPD 562 at 563; Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W) at 1030 F and 1032-3; Taylor v Welkom Theatres (Pty) Ltd and Others 1954 (3) SA 339 (0) at 346H-349D; Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Lt......
-
Cilliers NO and Others v Duin & See (Pty) Ltd
...considered Emphy and Another v Pacer Properties (Pty) Ltd 1979 (3) SA 363 (D): referred to H Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W): referred to Moosa NO v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd and Another 1967 (3) SA 131 (T): referred to Muller v Lilly Valley (Pty) Ltd [2012] 1 All SA ......
-
Apco Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Apco Worldwide Inc
...367B applied I Erasmus v Pentamed Investments (Pty) Ltd 1982 (1) SA 178 (W): dictum at 181 applied Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W): applied Marshall v Marshall (Pty) Ltd and Others 1954 (3) SA 571 (N): applied Moosa NO v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd and Another 1967 (3) ......
-
Statutêre minderheidsbeskerming in Suid-Afrika. Hoofstuk 5
...daar nie noodwendig na ’n “quasi-partnership company” verwysword nie. Sien in hierdie verband bv Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty)Ltd 1948 2 SA 1029 (W) 1033; Moosa v Mavjee Bhawan (Pty) Ltd19673 SA 131 (T) 139; Erasmus v Pentamed Investments (Pty) Ltd 1982 1 SA178 (W) 187-188; Super Safes (P......
-
Identifying the missing link in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A case for innovative approach to handling solvent companies overwhelmed by deadlock
...Tobacco Co Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 426 (CA) at 430; Marshall v Marshall (Pty) Ltd 1954 (3) SA 571 (N); Lawrence v Lawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W).22 Omar v Inhouse Venue Technical Management (Pty) Ltd 2015 (3) SA 146 (WCC). © Juta and Company (Pty) IDENTIFYING THE MISSING LINK IN SECT......
-
Advancing the Statutory Remedy for Unfair Prejudice in South African Company Law: Perspectives from International Jurisprudence
...Companies Act, 1973.9See City Crushers Ltd v Central Crusher Supplies Ltd 1933 TPD 111 at 116; Lawrence vLawrich Motors (Pty) Ltd 1948 (2) SA 1029 (W); Taylor v Welkom Theatres (Pty) Ltd & others1954 (3) SA 339 (O) 350; Aspek Pipe Co (Pty) Ltd & another v Mauerberger & others 1968 (1)SA 517......