The Western Cape High Court in the December 2019 decision of Holtzhauzen v Cenprop Real Estate and Naheel Investments confirmed the general proposition that a principal is not liable for the negligent conduct of its independent contractor.
This was a slip and trip claim where the shopping mall owner had delegated cleaning services to a
The claimant, suing the UK National Health Service, had a medical history of having undergone two caesarean sections and a tear to her womb. Her fourth pregnancy was therefore regarded as ‘high risk’ and her treatment plan provided for an elective caesarean section. She brought a claim against the hospital on the grounds of alleged
A defendant is not liable unless their wrongful conduct in fact causes the claimant’s harm.
The defendant is also not liable merely because their conduct in fact caused the claimant’s harm. There must be both factual and legal causation.
The long accepted test of factual causation is the ‘but-for’ test. One asks whether the claimant’s
Often ‘gross negligence’ is used as a carve-out from a no-liability clause. The Consumer Protection Act expressly provides that a supplier cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.
Negligence is the deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the particular circumstances. Clearly more than mere negligence is involved when a person
An acknowledgement of debt relating to a loan from one friend to another for a capital amount of R831 000 and interest at 18% per year was held to be a credit agreement for the purposes of the National Credit Act.
The agreement identified the capital, the interest at 18%, deferred payments, collection fees to
Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1965 allows a court to extend the period allowed for arbitration in terms of an arbitration agreement if ‘undue hardship would otherwise be caused’. The Johannesburg High Court held that it would cause ‘undue hardship’ to refuse to extend a time-bar in circumstances where the events that caused the
A bulk supplier of prescription drugs, which was not a manufacturer, supplied drugs in bulk to a retailer. A customer of the retailer suffered severe bodily injury because of misleading and defective labelling by the retailer. The retailer was entitled to the benefit of the distributor’s insurance if any claim was ‘only with respect to
The regulations relating to inquiries into alleged unprofessional conduct of healthcare practitioners registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) have been amended. Practitioners must ensure that their current and correct e-mail address is in the HPCSA’s records.
Two of the three amendments bring the regulations up to speed with modern times.
The Australian High Court found that a claim for psychiatric harm made by the widow and children of a man killed in a helicopter accident is a claim ‘in respect of the death of the passenger’. The phrase ‘in respect of’ is a broad relational phrase and it does not confine the claim to a