1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
¢e —\
Su <7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1) REPORTABLE: ¥84 NO
2 INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES; ¥&8/NO CASE NUMBER: 2022-029290
st Si TURE DA
In the matter between:
MICHAEL EDWARD COYLE First Applicant
MARIE ANN COYLE Second Applicant
and
CLASSIC COMFORT CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD First Respondent
PETER JOHN TROSKIE Second Respondent
GAVIN BYRNE Third Respondent
UMHLABATHI ENGINEERING CC Fourth Respondent
BYRNE HOPE JONES PROPERTIES CC Fifth Respondent
GARETH AHIER Sixth Respondent
In re:
MICHAEL EDWARD COYLE First Plaintiff
MARIE ANN COYLE Second Plaintiff
and
CLASSIC COMFORT CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD First Defendant
PETER JOHN TROSKIE Second Defendant
GAVIN BYRNE Third Defendant
UMHLABATHI ENGINEERING CC Fourth Defendant
BYRNE HOPE JONES PROPERTIES CC Fifth Defendant
Heard: 23 July 2025
Delivered: 22 August 2025
2
Dennen ea
JUDGMENT
a
YACOOB, J:
{1] The applicants, Mr and Ms Coyle, to whom | refer collectively as “the Coyles",
seek leave to appeal my judgment dismissing their application for an order staying
arbitration proceedings between themselves and the first respondent (“Classic
Comfort"), pending the determination of action proceedings that they have instituted
against the first to fifth respondents. Only the first and second respondents participate
in these proceedings and | refer to them collectively as “the respondents”.
[2] The factual background is set out in detail in my judgment which the Coyles
seek to appeal and | do not repeat it here.
[3] The application for leave to appeal filed on the Coyles’ behalf contained a
number of grounds not clearly articulated or consistent with the contents of the
judgment. At the hearing of the application for leave, many of these grounds were
abandoned.
[4] Mr Nel submitted that the crux of the application was that it will be more
convenient for all parties for arbitration to be stayed, and that the court had incorrectly
exercised its discretion, However, | cannot see that another court would find that it has
been demonstrated that staying the arbitration would be convenient for all parties. In
addition, this was not a ground articulated in the application for leave.
3
[5] | do not find any of the so-called grounds raised by the applicants persuasive.
The bulk of them take issue with the manner in which | articulated a summary of the
facts, for example, that | found that the building agreement was cancelled because the
“snag list" had not been dealt with, whereas the applicants’ claim is that it was
cancelled as a result of substantial defects. However the very letter of demand referred
to by the Coyles in support of this ground refers to the defects as those set out in the
attached “snag list" and calls for the defects to be dealt with failing which the contract
will be cancelled. It is clear that there is no merit in the ground and, as do most of the
grounds contained in the application, amounts merely to splitting hairs.
(6) | do not propose to deal with each of the grounds individually, partly for the
reason that they are in the main baseless in the same way. As pointed out in the
respondents’ written argument on leave to appeal, none of the grounds in the
application for leave challenges the core findings underpinning the judgment.
[7] Nor is there any basis proffered for a finding that the court's discretion was
exercised capriciously or on a wrong principle. In those circumstances | cannot find
that another court may come to a different conclusion.
[8] In addition, as pointed out by the respondents, the decision does not determine
the Coyle's substantive rights in any way. It is not final in effect in that sense. It is
therefore not appealable. It was submitted by Mr Ne! that the judgment is final as it
finally determines the application to stay. That is not the test. The question is whether
any of the substantive rights are determined and they clearly are not.
[S] | am satisfied that the decision is not appealable. and at, even if it was, no basis
has been established on which | can find that leave ought to be granted to appeal.