{"issue_text":"Whether proceedings can be instituted against a company under corporate rescue without consent or leave","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent under corporate rescue since 20 February 2020, no consent from practitioner"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant exists as a legal entity","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Certificate shows different name, parties entered agreement"}
{"issue_text":"Whether certificate of urgency valid when predating founding affidavit","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Certificate dated 1 July 2021, affidavit dated 2 July 2021"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought an urgent spoliation order against the respondent regarding a mining claim. The respondent raised four points in limine: applicant's non-existence, fatal defect due to corporate rescue moratorium, lack of urgency, and material disputes of fact.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases