South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2010 >> [2010] ZAWCHC 582

| Noteup | LawCite

---

Cameron-Dow v MFV Juliette and Others (AC 70/2010, AC 85/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 582 (29 November 2010)

Download original files PDF format RTF format

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