Mostert v Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd

In the case of Mostert v Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd, the applicant sought to have a Mareva order either dismissed or varied. The applicant had obtained the order to freeze the assets of the respondent company, Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd, in order to secure a judgment debt. The High Court was asked to consider whether the application could be heard without the need for leave, and whether the order should be varied or dismissed due to alleged diminution and disposal of the company's assets.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application to vary or dismiss the order could proceed without leave, the admissibility of affidavits and the settlement deed, and the sufficiency of the allegations to justify the continuation of the order. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the applicant's claims constituted a good arguable case and whether certain points could be raised for the first time on appeal. The court also considered the delay in bringing the application and the effect of confidentiality provisions on the admissibility of certain documents.

The court held that the application to vary or dismiss the order could proceed without leave, as the matter was urgent and the applicant had acted promptly. The court found that the affidavits and settlement deed were admissible, despite the confidentiality provisions, due to the overriding interest in justice. The court concluded that the applicant's claims did not constitute a good arguable case, and that the alleged diminution and disposal of assets did not warrant varying or dismissing the order. The court also held that certain points could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and that the delay in bringing the application did not affect the outcome. The court ultimately dismissed the application, but made an order that the applicant could seek leave to appeal if new evidence came to light.