{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff's claim for piercing the corporate veil has prescribed.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The claim arose from a judgment debt in 2014. The plaintiff instituted proceedings in 2014 and 2019, which were not prosecuted to finality."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the matter is res judicata.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no (court did not need to decide this after finding on prescription)","related_facts":"Similar applications were filed under HC 10930/14 (withdrawn) and HC 3350/19 (dismissed)."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the first defendant in 2014. After a nulla bona return of service, the plaintiff sought to pierce the corporate veil to hold the directors personally liable. The defendants raised a preliminary point that the claim had prescribed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases