The Supreme Court of Appeal, not surprisingly, found that a maintenance order made by a court is subject to a 30 year prescription period because it is a “judgment debt” for the purposes of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act of 1969.
The appellant husband had an unpaid maintenance debt of over R3.5 million as
This blog was co-authored by: Caitlin Gardiner, Candidate Attorney
In this judgement in the Supreme Court of Appeal the claimant submitted that the hospital breached its statutory duty in that it failed to ensure the proper safe-keeping of the hospital records of the claimant and her cerebral palsied child. The court considered the application of
This blog was co-authored by: Caitlin Gardiner, Candidate Attorney
In this claim, alleging that the hospital staff’s negligence during the claimant’s labour resulted in her child’s cerebral palsy, the Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the issue of how to assess expert evidence in a field where medical certainty is virtually impossible. In such circumstances
This blog was co-authored by: Caitlin Gardiner, Candidate Attorney
In this case, the Claimant sued for damages, alleging that the hospital staff’s negligence during her labour resulted in her child’s cerebral palsy. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that no adverse inference should be drawn because the hospital records are missing. Nor could any
In this judgment the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed as trite that a decision by a contracting party to cancel a contract concluded between two private parties cannot form the subject of review by the courts.
The power of the courts to review the lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness of decisions or actions applies only
The Supreme Court of Appeal has again emphasised that a performance guarantee in terms of which the guarantor undertakes to pay an amount if the contractor fails to perform the required work is unconditional. The beneficiary of the guarantee is not obliged to prove an entitlement under the principal contract before it can make a
In this judgment both the insured and insurer were foreign peregrini, that is neither was resident nor domiciled in the Republic of South Africa. The insured was a resident of the Virgin British Islands and the insurer, Russia.
The policy provided that it was governed by the laws of the insured’s country of domicile, that
In May 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal delivered a judgment with two important principles namely:
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an executive employee who was injured whilst at work when she became caught up with trade union protestors and was assaulted and mistreated by them and evicted in a humiliating and degrading way, was involved in an accident in the course of, but not arising out of, her
The court refused to order the return of goods by a spoliation order because the respondent was not in possession of the goods.
The claimant gave his motor vehicle to a dealer for a routine maintenance service. When he went to collect the vehicle he discovered that the keys to the vehicle had been handed