South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape TownYou are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2011 >>  ZAWCHC 287 | Noteup | LawCite
Law Society of the Cape Good Hope v Petersen  ZAWCHC 287; ; 12835/2008 (8 June 2011)
Download original files
Bookmark/share this page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NUMBER: 12835/2008
DATE: 8 JUNE 2011
In the matter between:
THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE CAPE
OF GOOD HOPE ….............................................................................Applicant
SIDNEY JOSEPH PETERSEN …........................................Respondent
In this matter there will be an order in respect of which paragraphs 1 and 2 is by consent.
1. It is ordered that the respondent shall within 14 days of the granting of this order, ensure the submission by the auditor, Mr Barry Lockitch of Wilder Lockitch, of Unit B10, Century Square, Heron Square, Century City, of the following:
1.1. A final audit report complying with the applicant's rules for the period commencing from the first day after the final day of the last audit report filed by the respondent and ending with 14 February 2006.
1.2. A certificate by the aforesaid auditor, verifying that all trust creditors had been paid full.
1.3. A certificate of nil balance from the respondent's bank, confirming that the TrustBank account has been closed.
2. In the event of the respondent not complying with any one or all of the above paragraphs, the appellant is authorised to approach this court on the same papers, duly supplemented as may be required for an order finding that the respondent is in wilful contempt of the aforesaid order and committing him to prison for such period as the court deems appropriate. This paragraph is also by consent of the parties.
I am additionally ordering that the respondent pay the ccst cf this application, as between party and party, but I reserve to the applicant the right in the event of the respondent not complying with this order, to apply to court at its convenience for an order that this aspect of the cost order be amended to read that the respondent pay these costs as between attorney and client. I do this because I consider that there has been an enormous waste of time in this matter and that there is a strong case to be made out for attorney/client costs, but those costs were not claimed in the original application. However, if there is further any abuse of the process of this court by the respondent, then I am reserving to the applicant the right to ask for a punitive order for costs.
8 June 2011