Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T16:59:45Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T16:59:45Z
dc.date.created 2003-12-02 en
dc.identifier.citation [2001] ZACC 14
dc.identifier.citation 2001 (2) SA 1187 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2001 (4) BCLR 312 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2111
dc.title Lane and Fey NNO v Dabelstein and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT60/00 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT60/00 en
dc.contributor.judge Goldstone J
dc.contributor.judge Kriegler J
dc.date.judgment 6 March 2001
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2111/Full%20judgment%20%2896.7%20Kb%29-17698.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for special leave to appeal against judgment and order of the SCA refused partly on the basis that no constitutional issue of substance was raised and partly on the basis that the issues had not been raised in the courts a quo. Maj: Goldstone J and Kriegler J (unanimous)
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for special leave to appeal to Constitutional Court against a judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA): Dabelstein and Others v Lane and Fey NNO 2001(1) SA 1222 (SCA). The effect of the Supreme Court of Appeal order was to set aside an attachment of South African assets in order to found and confirm jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Division. The judgment of the Cape High Court ordering attachment is reported as Lane and Another, Lane and Another NNO v Dabelstein and Others (Lane and Another NNO Intervening, 1999 (3) SA 150 (C).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account