Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Another v Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another (Leave to Appeal) (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 789 (14 August 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 789 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Another v Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another (Leave to Appeal) (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 789 (14 August 2025) Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Another v Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another (Leave to Appeal) (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 789 (14 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_789.html sino date 14 August 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No. 017055/2025 (1)  REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO (3)  REVISED DATE: 14 AUGUST 2025 SIGNATURE:. In the matter between: ADCOCK INGRAM HEALTHCARE (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT ADCOCK INGRAM INTELLECTUAL (PTY) LTD SECOND APPLICANT And ASPEN PHARMACARE HOLDINGS GROUP FIRST RESPONDENT PHARMACARE LIMITED In re SECOND RESPONDENT ASPEN PHARMACARE HOLDINGS GROUP FIRST APPLICANT PHARMACARE LIMITED And SECOND APPLICANT ADCOCK INGRAM HEALTHCARE (PTY) LTD FIRST RESPONDENT ADCOCK INGRAM INTELLECTUAL (PTY) LTD THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS SECOND RESPONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT Coram: Millar J Heard on: 13 August 2025 Delivered: 14 August 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00 on 14 August  2025. JUDGMENT MILLAR J [1] On 13 August 2025 I heard an application for  leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 12 May 2025 together with an application in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act [1] (the Act). Separate judgments will be handed down in respect of each. This judgment is in respect of the application for leave to appeal. [2] For convenience I will refer to the parties as they were in the main application save to note that it is the respondents who seek leave to appeal and the applicants who oppose its grant. [3] The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) [2] of the Act as follows: “ ( 1)      Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that (a) (i)   the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or (ii)  there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration” [4] The application was advanced in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) only. The application is a comprehensive critique of almost all the findings and conclusions in the judgment. It is neither necessary nor do I intend to traverse each and every one of these. [5] In its terms, the application for leave to appeal did not record that it was sought in respect of the order granted but rather against the “ judgment ” and the “ findings of fact and rulings of law ” made in the judgment. It is well established that an appeal lies against the order granted by a court and not against the reasons advanced. [3] [6] In their heads of argument, the applicant addressed each criticism with reference to the judgment and argued that these were without merit. It was argued that “ Adcock’s application for leave to appeal is, in essence, a lengthy catalogue of alleged errors…, with no attempt to demonstrate how these purported errors impact or disturb the substantive order.” [7] I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me in the judgment for the order granted.  I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the respondents and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the applicants together with the submissions made in each parties’ heads of argument. [8] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion and for that reason the application is to be refused. The costs will follow the result. [9] In the circumstances, I make the following order: [9.1]         The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs which costs are to include the costs consequent upon the engagement of 2 counsel where so employed, one of whom is a senior counsel, both on scale C. A MILLAR JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD ON:                                                             13 AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:                                   14 AUGUST 2025 IN THE LEAVE TO APPEAL COUNSEL FOR THE 1 ST & 2 ND APPLICANTS: ADV. R MICHAU SC ADV. J BOOYSE INSTRUCTED BY: BOUWERS INC. REFERENCE: MR. D BOUWER COUNSEL FOR THE 1 st & 2 nd RESPONDENTS: ADV. C PUCKRIN SC ADV. C PRETORIUS INSTRUCTED BY: KISCH AFRICA INC. REFERENCE: MS. T PRETORIUS [1] 10 of 2013. [2] See Fusion Properties 233 CC v Stellenbosch Municipality 2021 JDR 0094 (SCA) at para [18]. [3] Western Johannesburg Rent Board & Another v Ursula Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1948 (3) SA 353 (A) at 354 and Tecmed Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health & Another 2012 JDR 0821 (SCA) at paras [16]-[17]. sino noindex make_database footer start