Capacity: Advocate
Admission as an advocate: April 2005
Further admission as senior counsel: May 2021
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Date of Birth: October 1974
Qualifications: BA (1995) LLB (1999) (UCT), LLM (2005) (Wits)
Key judgments:
- Nedbank Ltd v Mabaso (2019/17887) [2022] ZAGPJHC 757
- Maistry v Naidoo (2020/36040) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1153
- Supercart South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Vanesco (Pty) Ltd (2021/50184) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1401 (23 November 2023)
- Killarney Country Club v Chance and Luna (Pty) Ltd t/a La Vie en Rose (2022/018731) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1511 (11 December 2023)
- Hassody v Pillay N.O. (35735/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 167 (21 February 2024)
Candidate Biography | Updated August 2025:
Advocate Richard Moultrie SC is a senior counsel advocate, practicing as a member of the Johannesburg Bar.
After completing his BA degree at UCT in 1995, Moultrie proceeded to obtain his LLB in 1999, during which time his passion for litigation was ignited by his participation in the UCT Legal Aid Clinic. He completed a year of articles of clerkship at Bowmans, before serving as a law clerk for O’Regan J and Somyalo AJ at the Constitutional Court from June 2000 to May 2001, after which point he returned to complete his articles to be admitted as an attorney in April 2003. Between 2001 and 2004 he worked as an editorial assistant for Juta & Co. He then entered pupillage, and was admitted as an advocate of the Johannesburg Bar in April 2005. After his admission he joined the Legal Resources Centre as its in-house counsel, before finally returning to the Bar in 2008.
During his 30 year legal career he has furthered his legal knowledge and expertise by undergoing various courses, such as for advanced advocacy, arbitration, and competition law. He has shown his commitment to furthering justice through numerous professional memberships, board positions and public service. He has served as an advanced advocacy trainer for the Johannesburg Society of Advocates (JSA) since 2011, served on the Legal Practice Act Committee and Task Team from 2016 to 2018 and from 2018 to 2019 respectively. He has also served as the chairperson of the JSA’s Judicial Candidates Review Committee between 2020 and 2022, and is currently the chairperson of the JSA’s Human Rights Committee. Notably, he has served as a commissioner of the Hillbrow Small Claims Court since 2011.
Moultrie has further ventured into academia, publishing various workshop papers, taking on temporary positions as a lecturer in addition to his practice. As an advocate, he has appeared in numerous significant matters that have played major roles in developing our jurisprudence, such as Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg.
He has served as an acting judge in both the Johannesburg and Pretoria high courts for a total of 28 weeks since 2016. He is currently sitting in the Johannesburg high court. During this time he has delivered 6 reported judgments, and 26 unreported judgments. He has been praised by fellow legal practitioners for the quality of his judgments in complex matters, and for the depth of research done in order to prepare his judgments.
In Nedbank Ltd v Mabaso, the applicant sought an order under Rule 46A(9)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court to vary earlier orders that had declared the respondents’ undivided shares in their primary-residence property specially executable so the property could be sold in execution without a reserve price. A prior judicial auction on 23 October 2020 attracted at least 35 bidders but failed to meet the reserve price; the highest bid was R300,000. The applicant urged removal of the reserve to attract buyers, relying on outdated valuation figures and a certificate of balance showing accelerated indebtedness. In a well-written and comprehensive judgment that emphasised the import of the Constitution and its values, Moultrie held that Rule 46A(9)(c) permitted broad reconsideration, including revisiting special executability orders where changed circumstances justified it, but on the facts there remained no satisfactory alternative to sale because arrears had continued to grow.
He found the auction return to be the most reliable indicator of value and set the reserve at R300,000, rather than permitting sale without a reserve. The earlier sale was declared void and the respondents were informed of their rights under section 129(3)–(4) of the NCA to halt a sale by payment of the overdue amount, and no costs order was made.
Moultrie has also delivered a judgment that has been referred to and relied on by many legal practitioners in respect of the law on Anton Pillar orders. In Supercart South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Vanesco (Pty) Ltd, the applicant had obtained an ex parte Anton Pillar-type order permitting searches, attachment and copying of documents and mirror imaging of electronic devices at the respondent company’s premises and at the individual respondent’s residence, to preserve evidence for pending contempt and design-enforcement proceedings.
The respondents sought reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Moultrie began by restating the principles for ordinary Anton Pillar orders, clarifying that they cannot completely include an order permitting the applicant immediate inspection and copying of attached items. In setting out the law on reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c), he stated that: (a) an applicant must establish the first threshold requirement (a prima facie cause of action) on a prima facie basis; (b) aspects of the second threshold requirement (that the respondent possesses specific/specified documents or classes of documents constituting vital evidence) must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities; and (c) for the third threshold requirement (a real and well-founded apprehension of concealment/destruction) the applicant must prove on a preponderance of probabilities the facts on which it relies to show the objectively reasonable apprehension (though the ultimate appraisal is objective). In the present case the applicant had established the second threshold requirement in respect of items seized at the respondent company’s business premises, but failed to establish that relevant evidence was located at the individual respondent’s residence; accordingly the paragraph authorising the home search was set aside and items seized there ordered returned or destroyed. As a result, the ex parte Anton Pillar order that had been granted was reconsidered and varied to allow for a more just and equitable order.
Moultrie has displayed numerous qualities in his legal career that make him an excellent judicial officer, as is evidenced by his time at the Bar and his stints as an acting judge. In particular, in addition to his legal intellect and understanding across most legal areas, ability to deliver timeous and well-written judgments, he has exhibited a passion for mentorship and training, and for the furthering of justice through litigation. He has already made noteworthy contributions to the law, and if he were to be appointed permanently one would expect his these type of contributions to continue.
October 2025 Interview:
The Judicial Service Commission interviewed candidates for eight vacancies in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Following deliberations, the Commission had resolved to recommend Advocate Richard James Austin Moultrie for the position.
Advocate Richard James Austin Moultrie’s interview was successful.