Opinion ID: 6333370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Recent South African court decision

Text: Before this Court heard oral argument, the South African court issued a new ruling in the Confidence-arrest litigation. There, Nadella sought to require Falcon Confidence Shipping to “make further and better discovery.” April Judgment at 8 para. 24. 6 The court granted that request and directed Falcon Confidence Shipping to produce the documents that Nadella requested. Id. at 19 para. 57.1. The court criticized Falcon Confidence Shipping for its “abject failure . . . to produce any documents of real substance pertaining to the management and control of the MV Falcon Confidence” and entered a punitive costs order against Falcon Confidence Shipping for “obstructing the conduct of the proceedings.” Id. at 8 para. 23, 13 para. 39. In the same order, the court also addressed Falcon Confidence Shipping’s request to compel both oral witness testimony and the production of documents in support of its argument that Nadella was a shell company that acted with unclean hands by using its 6 The documents Nadella sought pertained to “(1) the incorporation and business of [Falcon Confidence Shipping] and the purchase, financing and mortgaging of the MV Falcon Confidence, and its management, operation and alleged control by the company and/or by Ronald and/or Nico Poons; and (2) various corporate entities or trusts . . . which [Nadella] alleges form the structure in terms of which control of the vessel ultimately vested in Nico Poons.” April Judgment at 10 para. 30. 8 corporate structure to avoid paying legal costs to Newbrook. Id. at 14 para. 41. If Nadella acted with unclean hands, Falcon Confidence Shipping argued that Nadella could not seek relief in South African courts. But the South African court rejected Falcon Confidence Shipping’s application, determining that the papers it submitted did not raise a factual dispute justifying further evidentiary factfinding. Id. at 15 para. 46. The court found that Falcon Confidence Shipping’s discovery requests amounted to no more than a “‘fishing expedition’ with a view to ascertaining whether there might be a possible defense available to them,’” which could not justify the discovery it sought. Id. at 17 para. 51. Finally, while not reaching a firm decision on the issue, the court expressed doubt that an unclean-hands defense was viable under the circumstances given recent amendments to the South African Constitution. Id. at 16–17 para. 50.