About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAWCHC 582
|
|
Cameron-Dow v MFV Juliette and Others (AC 70/2010, AC 85/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 582 (29 November 2010)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
NAME
OF VESSEL: MFV "'JULIETTE'"
In
the matters between:
AC
70/2010
MICHAEL
CHRISTOPHER CAMERON-DOW
…........................................................
Applicant
and
THE
MFV "'JULIETTE'"
…...................................................................................
First
Respondent
C-CRAFT
CC
…..............................................................................................
Second
Respondent
RAYMOND
COOPER
….....................................................................................
Third
Respondent
PIERRE
JAN LAUBSCHER
….........................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
BASIC
BLUE TRADING 232 CC
….....................................................................
Fifth
Respondent
AC
85/2010
PIERRE
JAN LAUBSCHER
….................................................................................
First
Applicant
In
his capacity as sole proprietor of
WICKED
LADY FISHING
BASIC
BLUE TRADING 232 CC
….....................................................................
Second
Applicant
v
THE
MFV "'JULIETTE'"
…...................................................................................
First
Respondent
MICHAEL
CHRISTOPHER CAMERON DOW
…............................................
Second
Respondent
C-CRAFT
CC
…...................................................................................................
Third
Respondent
RAYMOND
COOPER
…...................................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
HANDED DOWN THIS MONDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2010
CLEAVER
J
My
attention has been drawn to the fact that the order issued in terms
of the judgment handed down on 18 November 2010 incorporated
a rule
nisi. This was a patent error as I had intended a final order to be
granted. I accordingly direct that the order marked
"X"
annexed hereto is to replace the order marked "X" which
was annexed to the judgment of 18 November 2010.
Annexures "A"
and "B" to the previous order continue to form part of the
order.
R
B CLEAVER