| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-06-29T12:31:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-06-29T12:31:24Z | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2017] ZACC 23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2017 (5) SA 370 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2017 (10) BCLR 1325 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/34465 | |
| dc.title | Swart v Starbuck and Others | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT153/16 | |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT153/16 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Khampepe J Majority judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Jafta J dissenting judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Zondo J separate judgment | |
| dc.date.judgment | 29 June 2017 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/34465/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2029%20June%202017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 — section 82(8) — claim by insolvent for the payment of damages — leave to appeal Uniform Rules of Court — rule 53 — condonation — constitutional challenge — judicial review | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for condonation and leave to appeal. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the SCA, including the order on costs. In the SCA the applicant appealed the order of the Pretoria High Court: Swart v Starbuck, unreported judgment Case No 48444/2008 (3 December 2013). The Pretoria High Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages under section 82(8) of the Insolvency Act). |