Twins Products (Pty) Ltd v Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: MacArthur J
• Judgment Date: 17 March 1986
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 18 February 1986
• Citation: 1986 (4) SA 392 (T)

MacArthur J:

This is an application which has been brought in terms of the provisions of Rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The application has been brought to set aside certain H proceedings initiated by Twins Products (Pty) Ltd on the grounds that these proceedings are irregular. The background to the dispute is as follows.

On 18 February 1985 Twins Products (Pty) Ltd, whom I shall refer to as "Twins", applied to the Registrar of Companies ("the Registrar") to order Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd, whom I I shall refer to as "Hollywood Curl", to change its name in terms of the provisions of s 45 (1) and (2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 ("the Act"). Hollywood Curl opposed the relief sought by Twins. On 9 August 1985, and after he had received written representations from both parties, the Registrar wrote a letter to the attorneys acting on behalf of Twins in which he stated, inter alia :

"... I am not prepared to make an order in the above matter."

The Registrar was then requested to furnish written reasons for J the order he had made in terms of the provisions of s 47 (2) of the Act. His

MacArthur J

reasons were provided in a seven page document and he dealt in A detail with the problem he was confronted with. He concluded in his last paragraph and I quote from this:

"I was not persuaded that the applicants in the present matter discharged fully the onus referred to in the Link -case. Furthermore, it is not clear from the representations on behalf B of the applicants what standard of care may be exercised by any member of the public who, it is claimed, may be confused by the name complained of. Consequently, no order was made."

Twins then brought an application before this Court in which an order was sought:

"setting aside the second respondent's order, dated 9 August 1985, refusing to order the first respondent to change its name in terms of s 45 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973."

That application was launched in terms of the provisions of s 48 of the Companies Act which reads as follows:

"Any company or person aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar under s 41, 42, 43 or 44, or by any order made by the Registrar under s 45, may, within one month of the date of such D decision or order, apply to the Court for relief, and the Court shall have power to consider the merits of any such matter, to receive further evidence and to make any order it deems fit."

Hollywood Curl in turn brought the present application...