Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:16:59Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:16:59Z
dc.date.created 2013-10-01 en
dc.identifier.citation [2014] ZACC 16
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (4) SA 474 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (8) BCLR 869 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3737
dc.title Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another en
dc.title.alternative CCT99/13 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT99/13 en
dc.date.hearing 5 February 2014
dc.contributor.judge Majiedt AJ Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 5 June 2014
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3737/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28381%20Kb%29-22080.pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998 – section 10(1) – requires registration of home builder to receive consideration for work done – no infringement of unregistered home builder’s rights to property and to access to courts Application to have arbitration award made an order of court – statutory prohibition precluding court from making arbitral award an order of court – would amount to a court sanctioning an illegality. Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant had entered into a building contract with the respondent without being registered as required by section 10(1) of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998. A dispute arose and was arbitrated. An arbitration award was issued in favour of the applicant under the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, which the High Court made an order of Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal reversed the order of the High Court. It held that Cool Ideas CC was required by the statute to be registered before it transacted. The Court confirmed the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal stating that the Act made it clear that Cool Ideas was prohibited from commencing building works whilst it was unregistered. It found further that it would be condoning illegality if it were to enforce the arbitration award. The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. Judgment: Majiedt AJ (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Khampepe J and Madlanga J concurring) Separate concurrence: Jafta J (Zondo J concurring) Dissent: Froneman J (Cameron J, Dambuza AJ and Van der Westhuizen J concurring)
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the SCA: Hubbard v Cool Ideas 1186 CC (580/12) [2013] ZASCA 71; 2013 (5) SA 112 (SCA); [2013] 3 All SA 387 (SCA) (28 May 2013).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account