Lipschitz NO v Udc Bank Ltd

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Judgment Date28 November 1978
Citation1979 (1) SA 789 (A)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
56 practice notes
  • Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes
    • South Africa
    • 19 September 1988
    ...An approach founded on similar considerations appears to underlie the conclusion reached by Miller JA in Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) at 808C - Furthermore, it seems to me, as a matter of principle, that when dealing with an agreement which is invalid because it contains ......
  • Botha (Now Griessel) and Another v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • 19 May 1989
    ...Law at 77 - 9; Sandmann v Schaefer 1969 (4) SA 524 (SWA); Smith v Rand Bank Bpk 1979 (4) SA 228 (N); Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A); Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Ingle 1910 TPD G 540; Kalk v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1983 (3) SA 619 (A); Swart v Vosloo 1965 (1) S......
  • Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Pick 'n Pay Employee Share Purchase Trust
    • South Africa
    • 22 May 1992
    ...any company in the group. That follows from the prohibition against a company purchasing its own shares: Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) at 797H-798A; AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Century D Insurance Co Ltd 1986 (4) SA 93 (A) at 101D-E; and the further prohibition c......
  • Lewis v Oneanate (Pty) Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • 28 September 1992
    ...but subject to the mortgage bond. Held, accordingly, that ground (1) of the exception had to be dismissed. Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) Held, further, as to the alleged vagueness of the contract, that the fact that the agreement was generally inelegant, clumsy in expressi......
  • Get Started for Free
51 cases
  • Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes
    • South Africa
    • 19 September 1988
    ...An approach founded on similar considerations appears to underlie the conclusion reached by Miller JA in Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) at 808C - Furthermore, it seems to me, as a matter of principle, that when dealing with an agreement which is invalid because it contains ......
  • Botha (Now Griessel) and Another v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • 19 May 1989
    ...Law at 77 - 9; Sandmann v Schaefer 1969 (4) SA 524 (SWA); Smith v Rand Bank Bpk 1979 (4) SA 228 (N); Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A); Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Ingle 1910 TPD G 540; Kalk v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1983 (3) SA 619 (A); Swart v Vosloo 1965 (1) S......
  • Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Pick 'n Pay Employee Share Purchase Trust
    • South Africa
    • 22 May 1992
    ...any company in the group. That follows from the prohibition against a company purchasing its own shares: Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) at 797H-798A; AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Century D Insurance Co Ltd 1986 (4) SA 93 (A) at 101D-E; and the further prohibition c......
  • Lewis v Oneanate (Pty) Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • 28 September 1992
    ...but subject to the mortgage bond. Held, accordingly, that ground (1) of the exception had to be dismissed. Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) Held, further, as to the alleged vagueness of the contract, that the fact that the agreement was generally inelegant, clumsy in expressi......
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • Die kapitaal van 'n beslote korporasie en die beskerming van skuldeisers
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...(HL); Guinness v Land Corporation of Ireland (1883) 22 ChD 349 (CA); Cohen v Segal 1970 (3) SA 702 (W); Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A); en Cilliers & Benade op cit noot 1 op 313. Die gemeenregtelike beginsel van aandelekapitaalinstandhouding word verder aangevul deur 'n hel......
  • Groups / Groepe : caput 6
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Transactions of the Centre for Business Law No. 2010-44, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...corporation.13 In terms 9 Section 40.10 See sections 40 and 63(f). 11 UDC Bank v Lipschitz 1977 1 SA 275 (W) 286; Lipschitz v UDC Bank 1979 1 SA 789 (A). 12 Section 295 (1). 13 Geach and Schoeman Guide 150of section 295(2), those particulars do not have to be disclosed in a holding company’......
  • Loans to Directors—An Analysis of Section 226 of the Companies Act
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...71 Supra note 4. 72 Stegmann J does not refer to the report in his judgment. 73 Supra note 56 at 662E—F. 74 Lipschitz No v UDC Bank 1979 (1) SA 789 (A) at 804D (per Miller JA). 75 S v Pourolis supra note 4 at 589C—F. © Juta and Company (Pty) LOANS TO DIRECTORS — ANALYSIS OF SECTION 226 OF T......
  • The Introduction of the Statutory Merger in South African Corporate Law: Majority Rule Offset by the Appraisal Right (Part 1)
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...to the company. The benef‌it to Company H is discussedshortly.152See further par 6.2 below.153See further Lipschitz NO v UDC Bank Ltd 1979 (1) SA 789 (A).154See Gilson op cit note 2 at 530.STATUTORY MERGER: MAJORITY RULE AND APPRAISAL RIGHT 29© Juta and Company (Pty) the triangular merger i......
  • Get Started for Free