BP Southern Africa Secures High Court Victory in Fight Against Hazardous Fuel Sales

In a landmark judgment on August 26, 2024, the Gauteng High Court granted BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd an urgent court order against Boy No 50 Trading (Pty) Ltd, effectively halting the sale of hazardous fuel and enforcing the cessation of the BP brand association with the involved petrol station in Theta Extension 3, Johannesburg. Ownership of the station by Aquarella Investments 481 (Pty) Ltd, further justified the legal action to protect both property and the integrity of the BP brand.

Justice Wilson's judgment elaborated that the dispute arose from Boy No 50 Trading (Pty) Ltd not only defaulting on lease payments but also engaging in the sale of hazardous fuel, under the guise of BP branding, after BP had terminated its supply agreements with them. The BP identification and material were ordered removed by the court. Serious safety concerns were highlighted, noting that the fuel, a mixture containing paraffin, posed a severe risk of explosion at low ignition temperatures.

Boy No 50 Trading (Pty) Ltd had opposed the urgent relief measures, with counsel Mr. Pule citing concerns over the urgency and questioning the High Court's jurisdiction given an arbitration clause in the lease agreement. However, this defense was dismantled by Wilson J, who stated that while the discovery of the hazardous fuel was made earlier in May, BP became aware much later, and promptly sought legal recourse. Moreover, the judgment firmly held that the arbitration clause did not exclude immediate court remedies for urgent matters.

A subsequent appeal attempt by Boy No 50 Trading (Pty) Ltd was swiftly struck down. Proposed new evidence to suggest safety improvements at the petrol station lacked credibility and relevance to the case at hand, and hence carried no weight for reconsideration of the order.

Justice Wilson highlighted the applicants' need for interim execution of the order, underscoring the "exceptional circumstances" due to the ongoing safety risks and the respondent's weak appeal prospects. The requirement of irreparable harm was also met, as BP and Aquarella, by virtue of association, faced potential reputational damage and liability for any accidents emanating from the dangerous fuel—all grounds underscoring the urgency of implementing the court's order notwithstanding any potential appeals.

As a result of the hearing, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal while granting interim execution, affirming the action taken by BP Southern Africa and Aquarella Investments to prioritise public safety and protect brand integrity. The ruling sent a strong message that safety concerns and the urgency of preventing potential disasters outweigh technicalities around lease agreements and the pursuit of appeal avenues, solidifying the courts’ stance on protecting public interest and corporate responsibility.