Darke v Darke and Others (Reconsideration Application)

The applicant, Geanne Darke, is engaged in acrimonious divorce proceedings with the first respondent, Gregory Darke, including disputes over maintenance and proprietary consequences. After repeated non-compliance with Rule 43 maintenance orders, the first respondent was found in contempt. Shortly thereafter, the fifth respondent company, Disruptive Vision (Pty) Ltd, in which the first respondent was involved, was placed in business rescue. The applicant alleged this was done to evade maintenance obligations. Upon learning of a scheduled creditors’ meeting to adopt a business rescue plan, the applicant urgently obtained an order on 24 June 2025 suspending the business rescue process and implementation of the plan. The order was granted without joinder or service on affected employees and most creditors. Those employees and creditors subsequently brought an application under Rule 6(12)(c) seeking reconsideration and setting aside of the order.

The order granted on 24 June 2025 was reconsidered and set aside. The applicant’s original urgent application was dismissed with costs. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the reconsideration application, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment reinforces the centrality of joinder and the audi alteram partem principle in urgent proceedings, particularly in the context of business rescue. It affirms that employees and creditors are affected persons with enforceable participatory rights under the Companies Act and that courts will not lightly interfere with business rescue processes without proper joinder. The case also clarifies the application of Rule 6(12)(c) as a mechanism to remedy procedural injustice.