Wright v Wright and Another

The appellant and the first respondent, brothers, conducted business in partnership, including operating Wright Metals CC. A dispute arose regarding the profits of the partnership. A High Court order declared the existence of the partnership, dissolved it, and directed the appellant to render an account, have it debated, and pay any amount due. By consent, a referee was appointed under section 19bis of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 to investigate and report on the partnership accounts. The referee concluded that the appellant owed the first respondent R1 085 000 plus interest. The appellant opposed the enforcement of the report, challenged several factual findings of the referee, and sought referral to trial, oral evidence, or remittal to the referee. The High Court adopted the referee’s report without modification and dismissed the appellant’s counter-application. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the referee’s report adopted by the High Court remained binding.

The case clarifies the legal status of referees’ factual findings under section 19bis of the Supreme Court Act (now section 38 of the Superior Courts Act). It authoritatively establishes the narrow grounds on which such findings may be challenged and reinforces the evidentiary standards required to raise genuine disputes of fact in motion proceedings. The judgment is important for litigation involving accounting disputes, partnerships, and the procedural use of referees in South African courts.