The judgment concerns an appeal about an execution order granted under section 18(3) while a special leave process was pending. It records the court’s reasoning on exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm, and the role of receivers after discharge of a provisional liquidation order, and dismisses the appeal with costs.
It may be relevant to insolvency, company law and litigation practitioners dealing with provisional liquidation, schemes of arrangement and section 18 execution orders.
Evidence from source
The current appeal before us is only confined solely to whether Millar J was correct in granting the execution and implementation of his judgment as envisaged by section 18(3)
Supports: plain_summary claim about an appeal concerning an execution order under section 18(3).
there was no role for the Receivers in the affairs of Marico after the provisional order had been discharged.
Supports: plain_summary claim about the court's reasoning on the role of receivers after discharge of the provisional liquidation order.
1. The appeal in terms of section 18(4)(ii) to this Court sitting as the next highest Court is dismissed with costs on scale B.
Supports: plain_summary claim that the appeal was dismissed with costs.