|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| January 2006 |
|
|
An appeal against an order granting an interdict suspends that order; chamber applications must include the draft order sought.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Appeals from orders granting or refusing interdicts – High Court Act s43(2)(d)(ii) – noting appeal suspends order; Chamber procedure – requirement to file draft order – Rule 227(3) – procedural non-compliance fatal; Confirmation of provisional orders – incompetent while suspended by appeal.
|
23 January 2006 |
|
Applicant's registered triangle mark did not prevent respondent's distinct triangular logo; no likelihood of confusion; application dismissed.
Trade marks – infringement – similarity and likelihood of confusion – ordinary average consumer test – distinguishing features and colour – no monopoly over basic geometric concepts (triangles) – costs follow the event.
|
16 January 2006 |
|
|
12 January 2006 |
|
Bail pending appeal refused where prospects of success were weak and risk of abscondment, despite some sentencing misdirection for two applicants.
Criminal procedure — Bail pending appeal — Applicants must show reasonable prospects of success and tip balance in their favour; Official Secrets Act — acceptance of guilty pleas and alteration of plea; Attorney-General’s authorisation (s11) — non-compliance not automatically fatal if no prejudice; Sentencing — failure to assess prejudice may vitiate sentence.
|
11 January 2006 |
|
Whether a judge’s personal approaches to colleagues amounted to incitement to statutory corruption (passport release).
Criminal law — Incitement (s 360(2)(b) CPA) — Statutory corruption (s 4(a) Prevention of Corruption Act) — No requirement of offered benefit — Presumption under s 15(2)(e) — Reliability and admissibility of poor-quality taped conversation — Discharge at close of State case — Evaluation of probabilities and credibility.
|
9 January 2006 |
|
Amendment to substitute unrelated defendant refused; plaintiff failed to prove owner liability under the pauparian action.
Pauparian action – liability for damage by domesticated animal – requirement that animal acted contra naturam sui generis – reaction to external stimuli excludes liability; amendment/substitution of defendant – incompetency and prejudice to non-participating third party; volenti/assumption of risk – experienced rider and disclaimer.
|
2 January 2006 |
|
Amendment to substitute the correct defendant was refused; plaintiff failed to prove pauperian liability as the horse was spooked and risk was assumed.
Delict — Pauperian action — liability for damage caused by domesticated animal — requirement that animal act contra naturam sui generis — reaction to external stimuli — volenti non fit injuria/assumption of risk — amendment/substitution of defendant prejudicial where proper party not joined.
|
2 January 2006 |