Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery v Distillers Corporation

Last updated

Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Ltd v Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Another [1] is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 18 September 1961, with judgment handed down on 23 November. Hoexter ACJ, Beyers JA, Van Blerk JA, Rumpff JA and Wessels AJA presided. It is significant for its articulation of the contrast between a mere pecuniary interest on the one hand and an actual legal right on the other:

Contents

The fact that the shareholder is entitled to an aliquot share in the distribution of the surplus assets when the company is wound up proves that he is financially interested in the success or failure of the company but not that he has any right or title to any assets of the company. [2]

The court found that, in enacting section 166(v) of the Liquor Act, [3] as amended by section 42 of the Liquor Further Amendment Act, [4] the legislature had not intended to use the phrase "financial interest in a business" in any restricted sense, such as, for example, in reference to a proprietary interest or a controlling interest. A "financial interest," within the meaning of section 166(v), is acquired, in any business conducted by a company, by a person who acquires shares in that company or in any other company which is by shareholding on its part linked with the former company, either directly or through an intermediate shareholding company or companies.

Goldberg v PJ Joubert [5] was thus overruled and the decision in the Cape Provincial Division, in Distillers Corporation v Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery , [6] thus confirmed.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seagram</span> Former Canadian multinational conglomerate

The Seagram Company Ltd. was a Canadian multinational conglomerate formerly headquartered in Montreal, Quebec. Originally a distiller of Canadian whisky based in Waterloo, Ontario, it was once the largest owner of alcoholic beverage lines in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anton Rupert</span> South African businessman (1916–2006)

Anthony Edward Rupert was a South African businessman, philanthropist, and conservationist.

The three-tier system of alcohol distribution is the system for distributing alcoholic beverages set up in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition. The three tiers are importers or producers; distributors; and retailers. The basic structure of the system is that producers can sell their products only to wholesale distributors who then sell to retailers, and only retailers may sell to consumers. Producers include brewers, wine makers, distillers and importers. The three-tier system is intended to prohibit tied houses and prevent "disorderly marketing conditions."

<i>Caparo Industries plc v Dickman</i>

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

<i>Canada Temperance Act</i>

The Canada Temperance Act, also known as the Scott Act, was an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in 1878, which provided for a national framework for municipalities to opt in by plebiscite to a scheme of prohibition. It was repealed in 1984.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clover (dairy)</span>

Clover Industries Limited is a branded foods and beverages group that used to be listed on the main board of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The company was delisted after a takeover by Milco, led by the Central Bottling Company from Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court held, in a 9–0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.

The law of persons in South Africa regulates the birth, private-law status and the death of a natural person. It determines the requirements and qualifications for legal subjectivity in South Africa, and the rights and responsibilities that attach to it.

Swadif (Pty) Ltd v Dyke NO is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of novation. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels JA, Muller JA, Miller JA, Joubert JA and Trengove AJA on 15 September 1977, with judgment handed down on 22 November.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African company law</span> Regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act

South African company law is that body of rules which regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act. A company is a business organisation which earns income by the production or sale of goods or services. This entry also covers rules by which partnerships and trusts are governed in South Africa, together with cooperatives and sole proprietorships.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian company law</span>

Indian company law regulates corporations formed under Section 2(20) of the Indian Companies Act of 2013, superseding the Companies Act of 1956.

Distell Group Limited, commonly referred to as Distell, is a multinational brewing and beverage company, based in South Africa.

References

Case law

Legislation

Notes

  1. 1962 (1) SA 458 (A).
  2. 472A.
  3. Act 30 of 1928.
  4. Act 61 of 1956.
  5. 1960 (1) SA 521 (T).
  6. 1961 (2) SA 829 (C).